ATUL KUMAR JAIN, J. - (1.) Taking help from the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and on the application of respondents no. 4 to 11, Civil Judge(SD), Makarana, District Nagaur, by impugned order dated 12.4.2012 in Civil Original Case No. 5/2010(New No.12/2011) titled as Smt. Samina v. State of Rajasthan and ors., has allowed respondents no. 4 to 11 to become defendants in the said suit. That order has been challenged by the petitioner who was plaintiff in the said suit.
(2.) I have heard both the parties.
(3.) The petitioner has argued that the impugned order is against the law and so it should be quashed. The petitioner relies upon the following rulings:- (1) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : (1992 AIR SCW 846). (2) Smt. Jahuran v. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmed and ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 3493/2011 decided on 20.5.2011. (3) Smt. Maina and ors. v. The State of Raj. and anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.854/2011 decided on 11.5.2011. (4) Kishan Sharma and anr. v. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru and ors., 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 492 (5) Sumat Kumar Jain Y ors. v. Pramod Kumar Agarwal and anr., RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1661. ;