Review by non-party rejected where impleadment came after judgment was reserved and no adverse adjudication was shown.

An impleadment application filed after a writ matter had been reserved for judgment did not create any surviving right to participate in that concluded proceeding. The earlier writ judgment had not decided disputed questions of encroachment or title, but had only directed action in accordance with law, including notice and opportunity to persons in possession. As no adverse adjudication against the petitioner-Society could be shown, a non-party not prejudicially affected by the judgment could not maintain review. The exceptional rule allowing review at the instance of an affected third party was held inapplicable, and the review petition was rejected as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner-Society was entitled to review of the earlier writ judgment on the ground that its application for impleadment was filed after judgment had been reserved and was not considered, and whether any right of the petitioner-Society was adversely affected so as to justify review.

Analysis: The application for impleadment was filed after the writ matter had already been reserved for judgment, and therefore could not confer any right or stage of hearing in that concluded proceeding. Once judgment is reserved, there is no intervening hiatus that preserves a further procedural opportunity in the matter. The earlier writ judgment had also refrained from determining disputed questions of fact as to encroachment or title, and had only issued directions for action in accordance with law, including notice and opportunity to the persons in possession. On that footing, no adverse adjudication against the petitioner-Society could be inferred. A person who was not a party and whose rights were not prejudicially affected could not ordinarily maintain a review, and the exceptional principle permitting review at the instance of an affected third party was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on either ground and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for impleadment filed after reservation of judgment does not create a surviving right in the proceeding, and a non-party who is not adversely affected by the judgment cannot seek review of it.

---