JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Vair, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan), whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 24 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the Nagarpalika Mandal, Bhusawar, Tehsil Vair, wherein he claims that since the land has been in his possession and under the possession of his name, the Nagarpalika should be prevented from disturbing his peaceful possession. During the course of trial, respondent Nos. 2 to 24 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment ostensibly on the ground that earlier the Panchayat had issued allotment letter in their names. Therefore, their interests are equally involved in the dispute raised by the plaintiff and the defendant, Nagarpalika. After hearing both the sides, the impugned order has been passed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner has been in possession of the land for a long time, the defendant should not have been impleaded as a party-respondents. Moreover, the allotment letter has been issued as far back as 1970. Therefore, on the basis of the said allotment letter, the defendants cannot claim to have any interest in the land in dispute. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and record. 5. Although the dispute may be between the petitioner and the Nagarpalika, yet considering the fact that the defendants-respondent Nos. 2 to 24 are claiming to have an interest in the land in dispute, obviously any decision of the Court would adversely affect their interests as well. Thus, before any order can be passed, an opportunity of hearing has to be given to the defendants as well whether they are entitled, whether they have interests in the land in dispute which emanates from the allotment letter or not, these are issues which can be decided only after hearing the defendant, respondent Nos. 2 to 24. 6. Since their rights and interests would be affected by the order or judgment passed by the Court, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in impleading them as the respondents. 2 to 24. 6. Since their rights and interests would be affected by the order or judgment passed by the Court, the learned trial Court was certainly justified in impleading them as the respondents. Hence, there is neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******