//1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1895/2006 Nirmal Kumar through his Legal Heirs Versus Keshav Singh & Others Date of Order :: 5th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. J.P. Sharma for the petitioners Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff - Rao Hamir Singh who is now represented by respondent no.1, filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of disputed property against defendant- respondents, wherein present petitioner filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party. The trial court rejected his application vide order dated 6.1.2006 which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on his behalf. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the applicant was the highest bidder in the auction proceedings //2// in respect of disputed property, therefore, he is a necessary party and trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting his application, whereas learned counsel for the respondents contended that the present suit was filed in the year 2000 for permanent injunction to the effect that plaintiff is an owner of the disputed property and the same is not a Nazul property, therefore, defendants may be restrained from interfering with the possession of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, an injunction order was passed on 4.5.2000 to the effect that auction proceedings in respect of disputed property may take place but sale may not be confirmed during the pendency of the suit, therefore, as per interim order of the court below the auction proceedings took place, wherein the applicant was the highest bidder. The applicant was not in picture at the time of filing the suit, therefore, he cannot be said to be a proper or necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 6th January, 2006 and the reasons assigned therein by the trial court //3// for rejecting the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. It is correct that the suit was filed in the year 2000 and at that time the applicant was not in picture nor his interest was involved in the property in dispute. While granting interim injunction on 4.5.2000, the trial court directed that disputed property may be auctioned but the sale may not be confirmed. The applicant also participated in the auction proceedings. So far as the prayer in the plaint is concerned, it is clear that no relief has been sought against the applicant-petitioner. The trial court has observed that in case the plaintiff fails to prove its case and suit is dismissed, then sale may be confirmed and property will be sold to the applicant but at this stage, it cannot be said that he is a necessary or proper party and consequently rejected the application. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK