Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. In a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent decree was granted against the appellant-defendant, which was challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal. The stay petition was dismissed by this court against the execution of the decree. It is mentioned in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that the land belongs to the State Government and, therfore, plaintiff was not entitled to claim compensation or interest thereon and it is admitted in the application that documents could not be placed on record regarding the land in dispute in the name of State Government and the issue No. 2 was decided against the appellant. It is mentioned in the application that the appellant intimated the Collector, Jodhpur and requested to intimate appellant as per revenue record as to whether State of Rajathan has any right, interest or claim regarding the disputed land or not. This letter was sent, to the District Collector on 20th April, 2001 whereas the decree was passed on 20th July, 2000. The appellant stated in application that appellant received communication dated 25th, July, 2001 from the Collector, Jodhpur stating that the land in dispute is not in Khatedari of anybody and it is shown in the name of UIT, Jodhpur. The correspondence was placed on record by the appellant alongwith this application and, therefore, it is submitted that the State Government does have substantial interest in the land and building in dispute and, therefore, it is prayed that State of Rajasthan through Collector, Jodhpur may be impleaded as party respondent No. 7.
(2.) According to learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant though failed to prove the issue before the trial court and also failed to produce the documents but upon enquiry they found that the State interest are involved. The submission on behalf of the appellant is very strange and it appears that the application is not at all bona fide. The decree was passed as back as on 20th July, 2000 and the present appeal was filed on 18th Oct., 2000 and that the stay was dismissed on 28th March, 2001 and, thereafter, it appears that to frustrate the claim under the decree of the respondent the letter dated 20th April, 2001 was sent to the Collector, Jodhpur by the appellant for the reason best known to the appellant and. that too, after dismissal of the stay petition. Despite all letters starting from 20th April, 2001, none of the party mentioned in the application initiated any proceeding to be impleaded as party in this appeal despite knowledge of the appeal and the appellant has moved this application to implead the State of Rajasthan as party as though the appellant has taken over to look after the interest of the third party and, that too, it was not a party in the suit before the trial court. The appellant also failed to submit any of the grounds how the State Government is necessary party in appeal when neither the State Government nor the appellant tried to make any submission for impleading the State as party before the trial court. The application is absolutely misconceived and lacks bonafide, therefore, the same is rejected.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on second stay petition filed on the basis of the alleged communication written by the District Collector, Jodhpur. The earlier stay petition was dismissed by this court and the present stay petition is absolutely misconceived and ba^ed upon so-called communication of District Collector and that communication was invited by the appellant itself, therefore, there is no ground for stay of execution of the decree. Hence, the second stay petition is dismissed. Application rejected.;