1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3268/2007 {Rao Khem Ram Versus The Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) & Others} Date of Order :: 21st August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Aditya Narayan Sharma with Mr. K.R. Rao for the petitioner Mr. Deepak Sharma for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 Mr. Ganesh Sharma for Mr. Kamlakar Sharma for respondents no. 5 to 7 Mr. Vipul Jain for Mr. Sudesh Bansal for respondent no. 8 BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. Deepak Sharma appears for the respondents no. 2, 3 and 4, Mr. Ganesh Sharma on behalf of Mr. Kamlakar Sharma appears for respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 and Mr. Vipul Jain on behalf of Mr. Sudesh Bansal appears for respondent no. 8. Respondent no.1 is a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This writ petition on behalf of applicant-petitioner is directed against the impugned order dated 3rd April, 2007 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plot no. 109 has also been allotted to him in the same scheme which is a subject matter of present suit, therefore, he was a necessary party, but trial court committed an illegality in rejecting his application. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 has no objection in allowing the application of the applicant- petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The counsel for respondents no. 5 to 7 contended that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant is not a necessary party. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 has also no objection in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner and after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that applicant is a necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He is 3 directly interested and affected party, therefore, I think it fit and proper to allow his application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd April, 2007 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed and he is impleaded as one of the defendant. 7. Cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK