1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Jagmohan & Anr V/s. Smt. Suman Kumari and Ors. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4703/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order :: April 30, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal for the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana (Bharatpur), whereby the learned Judge has allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for impleadment as party-respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the petitioners have approached this Court . The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that respondent No.1 did not reveal to the Court that one of the two children, namely, Kanha, was given in adoption to respondent Nos. 4 & 5 on 16.02.2006. Subsequently, she changed her stand and denied the affidavit filed by her earlier and claimed that, in fact, Kanha was given in adoption. Thus, the learned counsel contends that since respondent No.1 is 2 blowing hot and cold in her stand before the Court. The entire story given by the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 with regard to adoption of Kanha by them is unreliable. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In a case under the Guardianship Act, the deciding factor is the interest of the child or children involved. Therefore, by impleading respondent Nos. 4 & 5 as party-respondents, the interest of the petitioners is not adversely affected. Even if respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are impleaded as party-respondents, the petitioners can still continue to argue that the custody of both the children should be handed over to them. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the order dated 06.01.2010. This petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.ASopa/-