Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.01.2011 whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) Parbatsar, Camp Makrana has rejected the application moved by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment in the Civil Suit (CO No.11/2010) filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.4 for declaration and perpetual injunction in relation to a mining area, said to be comprised in Mine No.22, Rewat Dungari Range, Makrana.
(2.) After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, it is noticed that the plaintiff-respondent No.2 has filed the suit aforesaid claiming declaration and injunction in relation to a portion of the mining area in question on the basis of the alleged bapi rights; and the petitioners claim that their predecessor late Shri Abdul Samad had 1/2 share in the area claimed by the plaintiff and, therefore, they are required to be joined as parties to the suit. In order to assert their rights over the area in question, the petitioners rely upon the so-called admissions on behalf of the plaintiff and the alleged transfer of the bapi rights of the original patta holder Ramjaani, jointly in favour of the plaintiff and the said Shri Abdul Samad. However, there is no direct documentary proof in relation to the professed rights of the petitioners.
(3.) Looking to the nature of dispute where the petitioners are yet to establish their rights in the area in question, in the opinion of this Court, they could not have been joined as parties to the present suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration of his rights against the defendants in the Mining Department; rather joining the petitioners in the present suit would have enlarged the scope of the suit. Therefore, the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted in having rejected the application for impleadment as moved by the petitioners.;