Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) BOTH the above writ petitions have been filed against order passed by the Assistant Collector (Sub Divisional Officer), Rawatsar in Revenue Suit No. 49/2010 as well as in the application filed for temporary injunction, whereby, application filed under O. 1 R. 10(2), C.P.C. was rejected and order dt. 17.01.2011 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the Board of Revenue affirmed the order passed by the Assistant Collector -cum -Sub Divisional Officer, Rawatsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit filed by the petitioner -plaintiff under Sec. 188 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for seeking perpetual injunction for the prayer that no water course has beer sanctioned through the land of the petitioner without making proper demarcation of Stone No. 187/165 and 186/166. An application was filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead all the share holder of Khata No. 20/17 of Chak as the water course is to be constructed in the said Khata number but the trial Court rejected the said application in the suit as well as in the temporary injunction application.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by both the Courts below are totally erroneous because the petitioner filed application to implead the co -sharers of the land in question but the trial Court rejected the application while giving finding that the petitioner has prayed for relief in the suit that water course may not be constructed in his khatedari land, therefore, they are not necessary party. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards the fact that on the one hand the application of the petitioner has been rejected, on the other hand, application flied by co -sharer Surjeet Singh was allowed by the trial Court, therefore, the order impugned is patently illegal. I have perused the reasons mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. In my opinion, the finding given by both the Courts below is not in consonance with law because admittedly the prayer was made by the petitioner to implead all the co -sharers of the land as party so as to arrive at proper adjudication of the case. Therefore, at the time of deciding application of the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. the trial Court was under obligation to consider the purpose for impleadment of co -sharers of the land as party but it has not been considered. Therefore, both the orders impugned are not sustainable in law. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned are quashed and application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The persons mentioned in -the application are hereby impleaded as party defendants in the, suit as well as application for temporary injunction. Further, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit itself within a period of one year.;