IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5743 of 2004. Pradeep Kumar Mittal son of Shri Niranjan Lal Ji. VERSUS Ram Kishore Sharma, Proprietor, Jaishree Tubewell Company, Jaipur & Another Date Of Order ::: 17/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Manish Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner None present for the respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the trial Court against the defendant no.1 Ram Kishore Sharma and defendant no.2 Executing Engineer, Public Health & Engineering Department. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction. The defendant no.1 filed written reply to the application for temporary injunction, wherein he contended that he is only a Contractor and he is doing his work under the Project of the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, which is a Government of Rajasthan undertaking, and neither the said undertaking has been impleaded as party nor a notice under Section 80. C.P.C. has been given to the Government, therefore, the application for temporary injunction is liable to be dismissed. In view of above reply, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, as defendant no.3 in the case. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 10.08.2004. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of reply to the application for temporary injunction filed on behalf of the defendant no.1, the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project was necessary party, therefore, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead the said Project, as defendant no.3, but the learned trial Court rejected his application on flimsy ground observing that the plaintiff is unnecessarily delaying the proceedings of the suit, he is not aware as to whom, he should implead, as defendant in the suit, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. This Court vide its order dated 23.08.2004 issued notice to show cause of this writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents and also stayed the further proceedings of the trial Court, but no one is present on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition, in-spite of service of notice of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. It appears that, at the spot, the work was being done by the Contractor defendant no.1, and, normally the said work is being done by the Public Health & Engineering Department, therefore, the plaintiff impleaded the defendant no.1 as well as the Public Health & Engineering Department, as defendant no.2, in the suit. When he came to work that the defendant no.1 is working, as Contractor of the Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, then he immediately moved an application to implead the said Corporation, as defendant no.3 in the case. From the reply to the application filed on behalf of the defendant no.1, it is clear that the said R.U.I.D.P. was necessary party in the suit and the plaintiff was right in moving an application in this regard to implead the said R.U.I.D.P., as party in the case. The reasons assigned by the trial Court for rejecting the application of the plaintiff are absolutely illegal and the order based on such reasoning cannot be allowed to be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. is allowed. The Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, as prayed in the application, is impleaded, as defendant no.3 in the suit. The cost is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/