Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In the above two writ petitions, order passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Tract) No. 5, Udaipur dated 15.3.2008 upon application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Suit No. 16/82 is under challenge. For the sake of convenience, facts narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2191/2008 are taken into consideration. 2. Facts of the case speak that the petitioner-plaintiff preferred suit for specific performance of contract on 23.1.1982 before the District Judge, Udaipur and the said suit was filed against 5 defendants namely, (1) Vishwa-nath, (2) Mahaveer Prasad, (3) Sushil Kumar, (4) Krishan Kumar, and (5) Sevak Ram. During the course of trial, on behalf of defendant No. 2 Mahaveer Prasad, an application was filed by his counsel Shri Satya Narayan Gupta so as to implead Vijay Singh Jhala which is placed on record as Annex. 2. 3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed reply to the said application that he has no objection if Vijay Singh Jhala is arrayed as defendant. 4. Another application was moved by defendant No. 2 further under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151, CPC for impleading M/s. Srinath Investments as party. The said application is placed on record as Annex. 4. The said application was moved through his power of attorney Avanti Jesani. 5. Upon both the applications, initially the learned trial Court vide its order dated 12.10.1987 impleaded Vijay Singh Jhala and M/s. Srinath Investments as defendants No. 6 and 7 and amended cause-title was filed. Certified copy of order dated 12.10.1987, whereby, Vijay Singh Jhala and M/s. Srinath Investments are impleaded as party, placed on record as Annex. 6. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that after passing order dated 12.10.1987 for impleading Vijay Singh and M/s. Srinath Investments, an application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC was filed by the plaintiff for seeking amendment of the plaint and said application was allowed for amendment by the trial Court vide order dated 28.4.1991; and, thereafter, plaintiff-petitioner amended para 27 of the plaint and certain pleadings were made in respect of newly added defendants. 7. 7. After amending the suit, newly added defendants moved an application on 26.9.1989 under Order VII Rule 11(A), read with Order XIII Rule 3A CPC and Section 151, CPC and prayed that no relief has been prayed for against the newly added defendants, therefore, they have got no concern with the suit and the suit is not maintainable against them. It is prayed by defendants No. 6 and 7 that they may be deleted from the array of defendants and suit may be dismissed against them with cost. 8. Aforesaid application filed by respondents No. 6 and 7 was subsequently withdrawn with permission of the Court and the learned trial Court, upon request made for withdrawal, passed order to reject the application on 20.4.1992 which is placed on record as Annex. 11. 9. After impleading respondents No. 6 and 7, written-statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 7 M/s. Shreenath Investments and, in the written statement, it has taken contradictory and inconsistent plea and pleaded that property inquestion was agreed to be sold in lieu of Rs. 8,50,000/- and trustee Ram Prasad Ladha was authorized to undertake proceedings and, accordingly, Ram Prasad Ladha moved Assistant Commissioner, Deosthan Department. Thereafter, in view of pleadings in para 27, it was pleaded that sale-agreement was executed and, in pursuance thereto, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and interest thereon was paid to the trust and, accordingly, application was moved to the Assistant Commissioner on 8.9.1983, upon which, the Assistant Commissioner, Deosthan Department accorded its approval on 17.1.1984. 10. In the written-statement, M/s. Shreenath Investment has taken stand that defendant No. 6 Vijay Singh Jhala is in possession of the plot being power of attorney. M/s. Shreenath Investments has narrated so many other facts with regard to electricity connection and possession of the disputed plot and submitted that defendant No. 6 Vijay Singh Jhala is in possession. During the trial, both defendants No. 6 and 7 were contesting the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff and M/s. Shreenath Investment filed written-statement and was contesting the suit; but, during the pendency of trial, Vijay Singh Jhala passed away. Thereafter, his legal representatives were taken on record. Petitioner plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by defendant M/s. Shreenath Investments. 11. Thereafter, his legal representatives were taken on record. Petitioner plaintiff filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by defendant M/s. Shreenath Investments. 11. After the above proceedings, on 14.10.1997, learned trial Court framed following issues: ^^¼1½ D;k oknh o izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 4 ds e/; fnukad 2-4-1978 dks okn i= esa of.kZr eqjyh/kj ekuflax dk psfjVscy VªLV ds LokfeRo ds IykaV ua- 7¼,½ Qrgiqjk] mn;iqj dk foØ; vuqca/k #- 1]95]000@& ¼,d yk[k fiPpk.kq gtkj #-½ esa lEiUu gqvkA vkSj oknh okn dh bl laifRr dk fofuZfn"V ikyuk djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ &oknh ¼2½ vk;k eqjyh/kj ekuflax psjhVscy VªLV us mijksDr of.kZr laifRr oknh dks foØ; djus dk fu.kZ; fd;k vkSj mlds fy, fdlh O;fDr dks vf/kd`r fd;k\ &oknh ¼3½ vk;k okn i= dh dye la[;k 14 ds vuqlkj VªLV dh laifRr foØ; ,oa@vFkok lafonk djus ls iwoZ jktLFkku ifCyd VªLV ,DV ds varxZr l{ke vf/kdkjh ls vuqefr izkIr djuk vko';d ugha gS\ &oknh ¼4½ vk;k oknh }kjk izLrqr okn esa VªLV dks i{kdkj ugha cuk;s tkus ls ,oa VªLV fof/kd ilZu gksus ls okn iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ &izfroknh ¼5½ vk;k okn nsoLFkku vk;qDr dh vuqefr ,oa@vFkok uksfVl ds vHkko esa iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ &izfroknh ¼6½ vk;k izfroknh la[;k 2 ¼nks½ rFkkdfFkr foØ; vuqca/k esa i{kdkj ugha gksus ls mlds fo:) okn iks"k.kh; ugha gS\ &izfroknh la- 2 ¼7½ vk;k izfroknh la- 4 Jh d`".kdqekj lsB eqjyh/kj ekuflax VªLVh Fks vkSj ;fn ugha rks D;k VªLV us mDr IyksV dks foØ; djus ds fy;s mUgsa vf/kd`r fd;k Fkk\ &oknh ¼8½ vk;k tokc-my-tokc dh dye la[;k 10 ,oa 17 ds vuqlkj Jh :iyky xqIrk ds dk;ksZ ls VªLV ,oa dk;Zdkfj.kh ck/; Fkh] D;ksafd muds dk;ksZa dks i'pkr~orhZ dk;Zdkfj us ekU;rk nh\ &oknh ¼9½ vk;k eqjyh/kj ekuflag psfjVscy VªLV us izFke ckj mDr laifr dks eSllZ JhukFk bUosLVesaV cksEcs dks #- 8]50]000@& ¼vkB yk[k ipkl gtkj #i;s½ esa cspuk r; dj ml laca/k esa VªLVh Jh jkeizlkn y<+k dks vf/kd`r fd;k ftlus lgk;d dfe'uj nsoLFkku ds ikl izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj izfroknh la[;k 6 dks mDr lEifr foØ; djus dh vuqefr izkIr dh\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼10½ vk;k fooknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij fnukad 2-4-78 ds 30 o"kksZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; iwoZ Jh lsodjke fla/kh dk ,MolZ its'ku Fkk] ,oa lsodjke fla/kh Lokeh gks x;k Fkk izfroknh la- 6 us lsB eqjyh/kj ekuflax dk VªLV ls foØ; vuqca/k ds varxZr VkbVy dEiyhV djus ds mn~ns'; cls blls Qksj dUlhMj izkIr fd;k vkSj mldk okn ij D;k izHkko gSa\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼11½ vk;k lsB eqjyh/kj ekuflag psjhVscy VªLV us dksbZ ekgnk foØ; oknh ls ugha fd;k u fdlh Hkh O;fDr vFkok VªLVh dks foØ; djus dk izLrko gh fd;k bl dkj.k ls oknh dks fdlh izdkj dksbZ vf/kdkj LisflQhd ijQksjesUl vkQ dkUVªDV dk okn izLrqr djus dk iSnk ugha gksrk\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼12½ vk;k izfroknh la[;k 6 us lsB eqjyh/kj ekuflag psfjVscy VªLV ls gqos foØ; vuqca/k dh ikyuk esa izfroknh la- 6 us okn esa of.kZr laifRr dk vkf/kiR; izkIr dj fy;k gS bl dkj.k ls izfroknh la- 6 mDr lEifRr dk Lokeh gks x;k vkSj mlds fo:) okn ugha yk;k tk ldrk gS\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼13½ vk;k izfroknh la- 6 okn esa of.kZr laifRr dk ipsZtj Qksj osY;w fo/k dUlhMjs'ku fonkmV uksfVl gksdj mlds fo:) okn iks"k.kh; ugha gSaA &izfroknh la- 6 ¼14½ vk;k oknh dk okn e;kn vf/kfu;e ds vuqPNsn 54 ds vuqlkj le;kof/k ls ijs gSa\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼15½ vk;k izfroknh la- 4 o 5 bl izdj.k esa vko';d i{kdkj ugha gS vkSj muds fo:) okn fdlh Hkh izdkj ls esUVsuscy ugha gS\ &izfroknh la- 6 ¼16½ vuqrks"kA** After framing issues on 14.10.1997, an application was moved by the petitioner-plaintiff for framing proper issues and, finally, the application was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.1997 and certain issues were amended. Copy of order dated 26.11.1997 is placed on record as Annex. 14. 12. During the proceedings, the matter was ordered to be fixed on 26.7.2005; but, unfortunately, a forged application was filed by one Advocate Hargovind Bhatt on 16.5.2005 along with application dated 9.5.2005 bearing forged signature of petitioner-plaintiff Amrit Lal Taya, in which, it is stated that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties, therefore, they do not want to pursue. The application is Annex. 18, so also, application filed by Advocate Hargovind Bhatta for pre-poning the date from 26.7.2005 to 16.5.2005 is placed on record. Upon the said application for withdrawal of the suit, learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide order dated 16.5.2005 in presence of counsel for defendants No. 1 to 5. 13. It is specifically stated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the writ petition that in the suit he engaged Shri Akshay Singh and Bhgwat Singh as lawyers to contest the suit and vakalatnama was signed by him and they were contesting the suit before the Court. He has placed on record Annex. 16, certified copy of vakalatnama given by him to Shri Akshay Singh and Shri Bhagwat Singh, Advocates. He contended that he did not engage Advocate Hargovind Bhatt, nor he filed any application narrating that compromise has been arrived at in between the parties; but, somehow under conspiracy, for which certainly defendants No.1 to 5 were to be benefited, the suit was got dismissed upon false application. Thereafter, an application was moved on 26.7.2005, the date which is already fixed. 14. When the above fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff immediately he moved application before the Court and stated all the above facts that under false vakalatnama another lawyer appeared and forged application has been filed, therefore, the order dated 16.5.2005 may be recalled and application for restoration may be allowed. In the application, it is pointed out that fraud and malpractice has been committed by the opposite party so as to get the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff dismissed. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties restored the suit vide order dated 12.8.2005. Certified copy of the said order is placed on record as Annex. 21. 15. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a contempt petition which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 37/03. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties restored the suit vide order dated 12.8.2005. Certified copy of the said order is placed on record as Annex. 21. 15. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a contempt petition which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No. 37/03. In the aforesaid case also, similar kind of fraud was practised and application was filed obviously at the instance of parties who would be beneficiaries of the dismissal of the contempt proceedings so as to withdraw the contempt proceedings whereas the application seeking permission to withdraw the contempt proceedings was never signed by the petitioner-plaintiff nor he has signed the vakalatnama and, again, the same false pretext was projected before the Court that the matter has already been compromised in between the parties; meaning thereby, in the aforesaid circumstances, as per the petitioner, his suit filed by him in which respondents No. 6 and 7 were added as defendants upon application filed by defendant No. 2, a fraud was practised; but, later, upon application filed for restoration, the learned trial Court restored the suit. But, fact remains that fraud was committed in the Court by way of filing false application on behalf of petitioner-plaintiff bearing his false signature, therefore, petitioner lodged an FIR with Police Station Bhopalpura bearing No. 191/05 on 19.8.2005, in which, all the respondents and Advocate Hargovind Bhatt were arrayed as accused, in which, investigation is going on. But, the fact clearly speaks that opposite party was out and out to get rid of the suit and they made their all possible tactics and adopted a unique method by filing forged application before the Court and got the suit dismissed in the trial Court. But when this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff he filed application for restoration of the suit and for taking criminal action against the respondents and Hargovind Bhatt. During the trial, certain other criminal acts were committed by the respondents against which an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 10.8.2005. 16. Respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded as party defendants upon the application filed by defendant No. 2 Mahaveer Prasad and proper order was made by the trial Court upon the application filed by defendant No. 2. 16. Respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded as party defendants upon the application filed by defendant No. 2 Mahaveer Prasad and proper order was made by the trial Court upon the application filed by defendant No. 2. After impleading respondents No. 6 and 7 in the suit, an application was moved under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, that, too, was withdrawn and, thereafter, written-statement was filed and respondents No. 6 and 7 were contesting the suit. But, strangely enough, defendant No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC and prayed that defendants No. 6 and 7 are not necessary party, therefore, they may be deleted from the array of defendants. Though the said application was wholly misconceived untenable and was to be dismissed by the trial Court because once the parties have been impleaded by the Court's order, then, they cannot be permitted to be deleted again by invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, read with Section 151, CPC. There was no occasion for defendant No. 1 to move such application after 21 years of passing of the earlier order for impleading them as defendants No. 6 and 7. The petitioner-plaintiff and respondents No. 6 and 7 contested the said application; but, the learned trial Court after hearing the parties passed the impugned order on 15.3.2008 and accepted the application, whereby, it is ordered that names of defendants No. 6 and 7 be deleted from the array of defendants and, while parting with the order, the Court has recorded that matter may be kept for cross-examination of the plaintiff on 4.4.2008. Learned trial Court also ordered that in view of the order of deletion of the names of defendants No. 6 and 7 from the array of defendants, issues shall also be amended again. 17. It is submitted by the petitioner that how such type of order has been passed by the trial Court in the aforesaid circumstances it is required to be seen because the order impugned indicates so many things and, it is for this Hon'ble Court to read in between the lines. According to the petitioner, in this case, glaring facts loudly speak that this Court should exercise its power vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and, while quashing the impugned order dated 15.3.2008, the police shall be directed to complete the investigation in right manner. According to the petitioner, in this case, glaring facts loudly speak that this Court should exercise its power vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and, while quashing the impugned order dated 15.3.2008, the police shall be directed to complete the investigation in right manner. 18. It is submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition that this case is having very long chequered history and matter came to this Court many a time; but, those facts are not mentioned in this writ petition because the petitioner is challenging order dated 15.3.2008 knowing well that earlier respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded as party upon the application filed by defendant No. 2 and petitioner-plaintiff had not objected to their impleadment. Further, written statement was filed by defendants No. 6 and 7 and issues were amended by the Court. Thereafter, defendants No. 6 and 7 were thoroughly contesting the suit and application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11(A), read with Order XIII Rule 3A CPC and Section 151, CPC, though subsequently withdrawn, was rejected by the trial Court. Now, after 21 years, the learned trial Court has passed impugned order, that, too, without considering the whole facts of the case and conduct of the respondents in which manner they were seeking relief in the Court for deletion of the names of respondents No. 6 and 7 from the array of defendants. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff while attacking upon the impugned order vehemently argued that the manner in which the trial Court has passed order is required to be checked by this Court. Admittedly, first of all, in the suit, application was filed by defendant No. 2 for impleading respondents No. 6 and 7 as party and that application was allowed though it was not filed by defendants No. 6 and 7. Thereafter, respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded as party and issues were amended because in the suit after impleadment of respondents No. 6 and 7, amendment was made in the plaint and written-statement was filed by the newly added respondents and in the written-statement respondent No. 6 claimed his possession upon the plot and, so also, it was averred that during the course of pendency of the suit in the trial Court buildings were made by the defendant. Thereafter, false application was filed to get the suit dismissed but when this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff, an application was moved for restoration of the suit and, simultaneously, criminal proceedings was also launched against the lawyer Hargovind Bhatt; and, now defendant No. 1 in a peculiar manner moved application for deletion of defendants No. 6 and 7 from the array of defendants and learned trial Court, without consider the earlier order passed by the trial Court, allowed the application. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that once application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC is allowed and that order still exists, therefore, that order cannot be superseded by the trial Court while allowing application filed by defendant No. 1 for deletion of the names of defendants No. 6 and 7. The order of impleadment was never challenged and the same has attained finality and there is no provision for review. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order impugned is not tenable before the eye of law; more so, this order is mockery of justice because it is not choice of the defendants to file application as per whim, that, too, without the earlier order passed for impleading respondents No. 6 and 7 having attained finality, therefore, such type of order deserves to be quashed. 21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that conduct of the petitioner is not proper because he himself is responsible for the delay in the trial. The application for deletion and impleading of party can be filed at any stage. Further, it is submitted that the earlier application for impleadment of defendants No. 6 and 7 was filed by defendant No. 2, upon which, respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded as party. But, upon pleadings of the party when it emerges that no relief is sought against defendants No. 6 and 7, then, defendant No. 1 has chosen to file fresh application for deleting the names of defendants No. 6 and 7 and, upon that application, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised power and rightly passed the impugned order in which there is no illegality. The learned trial Court has rightly decided the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC which is filed by defendant No. 1, therefore, the order impugned does not require any interference because it is in consonance with the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that if any application is filed in bonafide mistake that cannot be any restriction upon moving fresh application, therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner-plaintiff is baseless and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 22. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that with regard to the allegation of fraud, the answering respondents have nothing to do with it because the application was filed by Advocate Hargovind Bhatt and if any FIR is filed it is for the police to investigate into the matter. As per learned counsel for the respondents, if the application for withdrawal of the suit was filed by Hargovind Bhatt that the plaintiff wants to withdraw his suit, the defendants, have nothing to do with the said application, therefore, there is no force in this writ petition and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 23. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire record of the case. 24. In this case, following facts are undisputed facts: (A) The suit for specific performance of contract was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against five persons. (B) In the said suit, an application was filed by defendant No.2 Mahaveer Prasad for impleading Vijay Singh Jhala and M/s. Shreenath Investments. (C) The application filed under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleading M/s. Shreenath Investments and Vijay Singh Jhala was allowed with the consent of the parties; and, thereafter, they were impleaded as party defendants in the suit and amended cause-title was filed before the trial Court and opportunity to file written-statement was given to newly added defendants No. 6 and 7. (D) It is admitted position of the case that application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the suit after impleadment of defendants No. 6 and 7 was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff and the same was allowed and suit was amended. (E) After filing amended suit, written-statement was filed by respondent M/s. Shreenath Investments, in which, it has contested the suit and narrated the facts with regard to possession of its power of attorney Vijay Singh Jhala. (E) After filing amended suit, written-statement was filed by respondent M/s. Shreenath Investments, in which, it has contested the suit and narrated the facts with regard to possession of its power of attorney Vijay Singh Jhala. (F) During the course of trial, suit was dismissed upon alleged application filed by Advocate Hargovind Bhatt before the trial Court along with application for pre-poning the said date and, on that date, the suit was dismissed upon the so called application which was allegedly bearing signature of plaintiff Amrit Lal Taya but disputed by the petitioner; and, suit was subsequently restored upon the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff. (G) Admittedly, FIR was filed by the petitioner-plaintiff with regard to filing of false application before the Court by Lawyer Hargovind Bhatta and investigation is going on in that matter. (H) After filing of the written-statement, issues were framed and issues were corrected upon application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.1997. (I) An application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC was filed by the newly added respondents No. 6 and 7, in which, it was prayed that no relief has been sought against them and the suit may be dismissed as against them. The said application was subsequently withdrawn by the newly added defendants; meaning thereby, newly added defendants were desirous to contest the suit, therefore, they filed written-statement before the Court. 25. Now, the question arises whether any application can be filed by the defendant to delete the names of respondents No. 6 and 7 upon that fact that earlier respondents No. 6 and 7 were impleaded upon their own application and whether order passed earlier dated 12.10.1987, which is still in existence, can be ignored by the trial Court or superseded by another order without any provision of review. Admittedly, in the Code of Civil Procedure, there is procedure for review and recall and there is limitation prescribed for filing application for review. Admittedly, the earlier order for impleading respondents No. 6 and 7 was made upon application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC, now again, after more than 20 years, the defendant has chosen to file application for deleting the names of respondents No. 6 and 7 for whom they had filed application for impleading them as party. In my opinion, such type of application ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. In my opinion, such type of application ought to have been dismissed at the threshold. Such type of applications are not maintainable in view of the fact that legislature has not granted liberty to any litigant to play hide and seek with the provisions of law. 26. Certainly, right has been given under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleadment of a party as defendant and that liberty was exercised by the defendant while filing the earlier application, that too, before 21 years and the petitioner-plaintiff did not object to impleading them as party; and, that order is still in existence because upon perusal of the subsequent order dated 15.3.2008, impugned in this writ petition, it does not disclose any order as to what happended to that order. That order cannot be treated to be in abeyance. Now, this fresh application, in my opinion, such type of application is basically untenable and was required to be rejected by the trial Court but the trial Court committed gross error while allowing such type of application knowing well that after impleading respondents No. 6 and 7 as party; and, accordingly, issues were amended and suit was also amended and trial of the suit is going on for last 21 years. 27. Contention of the respondents' counsel with regard to maintainability of the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC at any stage of the trial deserves to be rejected on the ground that no litigant can be permitted to file application contrary to their own version. In the earlier application, specific assertion was made that Vijay Singh Jhala is in possession of the plot and agreement has been executed in favour of M/s. Shreenath Investments; meaning thereby, the earlier application was allowed on the basis of pleadings of the said application. The assertion made in the said application is as follows: ^^6- blds ckn izkFkhZ izfroknh la[;k 2 us vius LFkkuh; vfHkdrkZ Jh t;Urh tSlkuh dks fooknxzLr Hkwfe dh ekSds dh fLFkfr tkuus gsrq ekSds ij Hkstk rks ogka ij ;g ekyqe gqvk fd fooknxzLr Hkwfe dk Qhthdy its'ku izfroknh la[;k 1 dksbZ iks'khnk lafon djds Jh fot;flag >kyk uke ds vkneh dks igys gh lkSai fn;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh ekyqe gqvk gS fd mlls yk[kksa #i;s dh rknkn esa jde lafon ds ,otkuk esa ys yh gSA** and, application now filed, which is at Annex. 29, runs as under: ^^;g fd bl ekeys esa izfroknh la[;k 6 o 7 dks U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkj iwoZ esa cuk;k x;k gS 1- okn ds fdlh Hkh LVst ij U;k;ky; dks ;g tkudkjh esa yk;k tkosa fd fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dks xyr :i ls i{kdkj cuk;k gS rks U;k;ky; fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dks ml okn ls fMyhV dj ldrh gSA ekStwnk ekeys esa izfroknh la[;k 7 }kjk ;g crk;k x;k gS fd izfroknh la[;k 1 ls 4 }kjk muds i{k esa foØ; vuqcU/k fd;k x;k gSA foØ; vuqcU/k ls Lohd`r :i ls dksbZ LoRo ,oa vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gS dsoy lafonk dh ikyuk ds fy, okn izLrqr djus dk gh vf/kdkj izkIr gksrk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ekStwnk okn esa izfroknh la[;k 7 tks dsoy vius i{k esa bdjkj gksuk dgrk gS og u rks blesa vko';d i{kdkj gS] u og i{kdkj dh gSfl;r ls jg ldrk gS D;ksafd mlds i{kdkj jgus ij bl okn esa mlds rFkkdfFkr vuqcU/k dk Hkh fofu'p; djuk iM+sxk tks bl okn dh ifjf/k ls ckgj gS] bruk gh ugha izfroknh la[;k 6 dk rks dksbZ laca/k gh bl okn ls ugha gSA [kqn izfroknh la[;k 6 o 7 us izfroknh la[;k 6 dks xyr :i ls i{kdkj cukus dk ,rjkt Hkh ys j[kk gSA fdlh Hkh vuqcU/k dh ikyuk ds okn esa fdlh vU; vuqcU/k/kkjh dHkh Hkh vko';d i{kdkj ugha gksrk gSA fygktk bl ekeys izfroknh la[;k 6 o 7 dks xyr i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gSA blls u dsoy Vªk;y QzLVsV gksxh vfirq vuko';d :i ls muds }kjk mBk;s x;s fcUnq ,oa mu ij cuh rufd;kr ds lEcU/k esa Hkh U;k;ky; dks fu.kZ; nsuk iM+sxk tks fd ekStwnk okn dh ifjf/k esa gh ugha vkrs gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa tcfd oknh dh 'kgknr gh vkjEHk ugha gqbZ gS izfroknh la[;k 6 o 7 dks bl okn ls gVk;k tkuk vko';d gSA** 28. The trial Court while accepting the application filed on 14.2.1985 ordered for impleadment of respondents No. 6 and 7, and, now after 21 years, another application has been filed for deleting names of respondents No. 6 and 7, therefore, at the time to deciding the subsequent application, the learned trial Court ought to have considered the glaring facts of this case. But, without incorporating or considering the factum of earlier application and circumstances that emerged in 21years in the course of trial, the trial has committed grave error while allowing application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC. Such type of order is patently illegal order and is not in consonance with law. 29. Upon perusal of the order impugned it is revealed that the learned trial Court has decided the application in a very casual manner, so also, without considering the intention of the legislature for inserting provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2), C.P.C. 30. In this view of the matter, while allowing this writ petition, it is held that order dated 15.3.2008, which runs contrary to the earlier order passed 21 years ago on 12.10.2007, is perverse and illegal and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit itself expeditiously, preferably within one year from now. 31. Further, in this matter, it is desirable that investigation of FIR No. 191/05, P.S. Bhopalpura may be done thoroughly because allegation revealed by the petitioner-plaintiff are very serious because in the proceedings of the trial Court, fraud has been committed for which necessary steps are required to be taken by the Administration. 32. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of Policy, Udaipur for the purpose of monitoring the investigation in the matter and get proper investigation made in the FIR No. 191/05, P.S. Bhopalpura. 33. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are allowed. Order impugned dated 15.3.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside.