Counsel for the petitioner has also made a reference to Inder Vikram Singh Vs. Dr.Harinder Pal Singh, 2008 (1) PLR, Page 267 , in which case, it was observed that a plaintiff cannot resist the impleadment of the defendant whose interests are likely to be effected in any manner. In the said case in a suit for possession on the basis of title, where question of ownership was required to be examined and a third party sought the ownership in a part of the property, as such, the said party was permitted to be impleaded as a party. The ratio of said judgment does not appear to be relevant in the present case, especially when the main defendant i.e., father of the petitioner, namely Jhujhar Singh, who had allegedly entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 & 3, had not taken up the plea regarding the nature of the property to be joint Hindu family and coparcenary property. The applicantpetitioner has also not been able, at this stage, to satisfy the Court regarding the nature of the property as Joint Hindu family coparcenary property from any document and where the case has already been decided and is at appellate stage, it will not be proper, in the interest of justice, to permit the petitioner to become a party and change the nature of the suit.
