- (1.) The present petition arises out of the order dated dated 27.9.09 passed by the District Judge, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') rejecting the application of the petitioner-original plaintiff for impleading the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 as party-defendants in the suit, under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
(2.) It has been sought to be submitted by th learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit for partition of the properties against the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original defendants, who happen to be the brothers of the petitioner. According to him, the respondent No. 1 happens to be the step brother of the petitionerplaintiff, and the petitioner came to know only when the evidence was recorded before the trial court that the properties in question were sold out by the respondent No.1 to the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 in the year 1961 and, therefore, the petitioner had moved an application for impleading the respondent Nos. 3 to 14 as partydefendants in the suit. He also submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the said respondents are required to be impleaded as the party-defendants in the suit.
(3.) As against that learned counsel Mr. Sharad Yadav for respondent No.1 submits that the order passed by the trial court being just and proper, no interference is called for. So far as the other respondents are concerned, service of the notices to some of the respondents was already dispensed with, however nobody appears for the rest of the respondents who have been duly served.;