// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4899/2007 Hanuman S/o Gadi Ramdas and Others Versus Heera Lal S/o Jagannath and Others Date of Order ::: 08.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajneesh Gupta, Counsel for petitioners Shri R.K. Gaur and Shri S.B. Gupta, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 15th November, 2006 passed by the trial court whereby their application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as defendants in the suit has been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondents No.1 to 6 filed a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court against the defendants-respondents No.7 to 13, wherein the present petitioners moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that although the present suit is // 2 // simply a suit for injunction but the defendants have filed a counter-claim to declare them as owner on the basis of their possession, and ultimately the declaration decree can also be passed in the case whereas they are the owners of the suit property, therefore, they were necessary party in the suit and the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their application. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the trial court was justified in rejecting their application. He further contended that the applicants cannot compel the plaintiff to implead them as a party in his suit as the plaintiff is the master of his own suit. He further contended that whatever decree is passed in the case will not be binding on the applicants. If the petitioners are aggrieved with any action of the defendants in the present suit then the applicants are at liberty to file a separate suit. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application of the petitioners // 3 // under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also examined the other documents placed on the record, and, after considering the same, I find that the trial court has specifically observed that the petitioners are neither necessary nor proper party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also said before this Court that whatever decree is passed in the present case will not be binding on the petitioners. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, there is no need to pass any separate order on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution and the same also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//