PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)THE petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved against the order dated 20th June, 2008 by which the trial court impleaded the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as party while allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the newly added respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against the Municipal Board, Pali and sought the relief of injunction against the Municipal Board, Pali with the allegation which substantially shows that the newly added parties - respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have their house adjoining the house of the plaintiff and because of some dispute between them and the proceedings taken in the Municipal Board, the Municipal Board issued notice to the plaintiff (Annex. R/1) and because of that reason the plaintiff had to file the suit for injunction.

(3.)IN the trial court application was submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that because of the act of the plaintiff, their properties likely to be damaged or may be put in condition for which there will not be possibility of any repairing of the wall. Be it as it may be, the trial court observed that for determination of the question involved and effective decision of the suit, presence of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is necessary.