CW 3925/10 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3925/10 Siyaram & Ors. Versus BOR, Ajmer & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 23/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Nawal Singh Sikarwar, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.3rd November, 2000 whereby application filed by petitioner U/O.1 R.10 CPC, has been rejected. The suit for declaration & permanent injunction u/ss.88 & 188 of the Act was filed by Smt. Teja W/o Late Jagannath in the year 1976 impleading other family members as party respondent and petitioner's father Rameshwar is also a party to the pending suit. After 33 yrs. have rolled by now, application was filed by petitioner U/O.1 R.10 CPC to implead them as party respondent in the pending suit which was finally rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order impugned dt.1st February, 2010 and it has been observed that other members of the family are respondents and petitioner's father Rameshwar was also a party to the suit and representing their cause who is one of the respondents and the petitioners are claiming themselves to be impleaded as party respondent in the application CW 3925/10 [2] filed U/O.1 R.10 CPC, and claiming their shares are in the shoes of their father Rameshwar. Taking note thereof, it was not considered appropriate to grant permission to the petitioners for their impleadment U/O.1 R.10 CPC as the respondents in the pending suit. Counsel for petitioner submits that they have an independent right after attaining the majority and since the suit is relating to declaration & permanent injunction, they are having a right to contest the suit within their own rights. It cannot be ruled out that suit was preferred in 1976 impleading their father Rameshwar as party respondent and petitioners claiming their rights are in the shoes of their father Rameshwar as successor in the property which was inherited by him pending since 1976. Taking note of what has been observed by the Board of Revenue in Para 8 of the order impugned, this Court does not find any any manifest error being committed by the authority in passing order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA/p.2/ 3925CW10 23-3.doc