of the Act. That application of respondent no.4 was not considered on merits and remained undisposed till the impugned order was passed. The learned Magistrate, however, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners has solely relied upon the averments made in her application seeking her impleadment as party-respondent in these proceedings. He has proceeded on the assumption that whatever has been stated by her in the application is true and that she has a right in the property and respondent no.1 is only the co-owner of undivided property. The learned Magistrate has further proceeded to hold that the petitioner has failed to prove that the property is secured asset and that the secured interest is created in their favour. The learned Magistrate, in my opinion, ought not to have rejected the application solely relying upon the averments made by respondent no.4 in her application for impleadment and/or in the subsequent application filed by her. In my opinion, third party, such as respondent no.4 in these proceedings, has no right to intervene in the proceedings arising from the application under section 14 of the Act and the Magistrate is expected to examine the case on the basis of the documents on record and proceed to pass order in accordance with law. Insofar as rights of respondent no.4 are concerned, apart from the fact the petitioners have denied her rights in the suit property, it is always open to respondent no.4 to either file
