Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 13.02.2009 whereby the trial Court allowed the applicant's -resopndent's application for being impleaded as party. There is no need to give more details fact other than the facts which are substantially not in dispute that the applicant is claiming that the industrial plot was allotted to him by the RIICO as back as on 03.01.1977 and a lease deed was registered in his favour on 12.09.1979. The plaintiff -petitioner filed the suit before 1982 against the RIICO only wherein the applicant submitted application for being impleaded as party, which was allowed by the trial Court. That suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court and ultimately by the High Court, the second appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner that the present plaintiff -petitioner also filed a suit for declaration wherein the applicant is party impleaded by the plaintiff himself. Only limited argument is that in a suit for injunction against the Electricity Board against disconnection of the supply, how the applicant can be a necessary party against which no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff nor the applicant can resist the connection of the plaintiff. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of the property since before the allotment of the land to the applicant.;