1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10820/2008 {Bhonre Lal (deceased) through LRs Versus Smt. Vidhya Devi & Others} Date of Order :: 1st September,2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Rahul Tiwari, counsel for the petitioners Ms. Saroj Chaudhary,counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT: At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 20th August, 2008 (Annexure-3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Mundawar, District Alwar, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party-defendant has been rejected. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that one Matadeen was recorded tenant of agriculture land bearing khasra no. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 measuring total rakba 13 bigha and 7 biswa. He executed a 'Will' and after his death the mutation was opened in the name of respondent no.2 Smt. 2 Munno Devi and from her, the applicant- petitioner purchased 7/26th share and at present he is recorded tenant of the said purchased land and he is in possession thereof. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 Smt. Vidhya Devi filed a suit against the applicant-petitioner Bhonre Lal for declaration, correction of entry and permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the court of SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Similarly the applicant- petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against Rajendra and Bhoop Singh, both sons of Rameshwar, which was decreed by the court of SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Both the suits were in respect of land-in-dispute, for which the present suit has been preferred by respondent no.1 – Smt. Vidhya Devi for cancellation of 'Will' executed by Matadeen in favour of the respondent no.2 Smt. Munno Devi. Therefore, he is directly interested and affected party and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting his application to implead him as a party. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order contending that looking to the nature of suit i.e. suit for cancellation of 'Will', the 3 present applicant is not at all a necessary party and trial court rightly rejected their application. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of this writ petition, the applicant-petitioner Bhonre Lal died and in his place, his legal representatives have been substituted. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order. At present out of total agricultural land measuring 13 bigha 7 biswa, which was mutated in favour of Smt. Munno Devi, the defendant/respondent no.2, the petitioner purchased the 7/26th share and in respect of the same land he preferred revenue suit no. 158/99 for permanent injunction, which was decreed by SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Similarly, the present plaintiff/respondent no.1-Vidhya Devi filed a suit for declaration, correction of entry and permanent injunction against the present applicant Bhonri Lal and others, which was dismissed by the Court of SDO, Mundawar vide judgment dated 29th May, 2006. Although this is a suit for cancellation of 'Will' executed by 4 Matadeen in favour of Smt. Munno Devi, but in view of the fact that petitioner is a purchaser of 7/26th share of the land-in-dispute and at present he is in possession, his suit for permanent injunction was decreed and suit of plaintiff-respondent no.1 for declaration was dismissed, wherein the applicant-petitioner was impleaded as defendant no. 1. In these circumstances, I am of the view that present applicant is a necessary and proper party and his presence is required for effective and complete adjudication upon all the questions involved in the present suit. In view of above, it is clear that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20th August, 2008 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and legal representatives of applicant-Bhonri Lal are allowed to be impleaded as defendants in the present suit. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK/