// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6427/2008 Lachma Wd/o Prabhat and Others Versus Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 14.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Sanjay Sharma, Counsel for petitioners #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Plaintiff-respondents No.2 to 5 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in the trial court and, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for production of document and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead RIICO as defendant in the suit. The application was contested by the defendants. The trial court, vide order dated 17th May, 2008, allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants. // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that looking to the nature of the suit, the defendants were only necessary party, therefore, the trial court committed an illegality in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead RIICO as party defendant in the case. He further contended that the opposite-party is already watching their interest in a reference pending against the award in respect of acquisition of disputed land, therefore, there was no necessity to implead the RIICO as party in the case. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the impugned order dated 17th May, 2008 passed by the trial court. It has been observed in the order that out of the disputed land the Government has acquired 0.49 hectare land for RIICO and the Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has already been issued, which have been published in daily newspaper. A copy of daily newspaper has been placed on the record along-with the application, sought to be produced on the record. It was further prayed that some disputed land has been // 3 // acquired for RIICO, therefore, RIICO is also necessary party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The trial court allowed both the applications filed by the plaintiff and passed an order to take the copy of newspaper on the record wherein the Notification was published and also to implead RIICO as defendant in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court is justified. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in it. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners contended that the present suit is pending since 2001 and the plaintiff is unnecessarily delaying the matter for one or the other reason, therefore, the trial court be directed to expedite the trial of the suit. The prayer of the petitioners appears to be reasonable, therefore, it is directed that the trial court shall expedite the suit. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//