JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff Shri Vijay Singh Bedla (the respondent No.1 herein) has filed a civil suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 18.01.2006 as executed by the defendant No.1 Smt. Pushpa Kanwar (the respondent No.2 herein) in favour of B.B. Export (the petitioner herein) in relation to a house property, said to be known as 'Kala Mahal' and situated at village Junawas (Nahar Magra), Tehsil Mavli, District Udaipur. It has, inter alia, been asserted in the plaint that the plaintiff's father late Rao Manohar Singh Bedla was the exclusive owner of the property and after him, the plaintiff himself has been the owner and occupant thereof; and that the plaintiff's father never issued any patta in regard to the property in question. It has also been averred that the plaintiff's father expired in the year 1985; that the plaintiff had three brothers namely, Raghunath Singh, Madho Singh and Janak Singh who had also expired; that Raghunath Singh expired issueless whereas Madho Singh's son Himmat Singh and Janak Singh's son Deepak Kumar were living at other places and the entire property was being looked-after by the plaintiff; and that after the demise of his father, the property came in exclusive ownership and possession of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has asserted that the sale deed executed in relation to the property in question by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 is unauthorised and invalid for having been executed on the basis of a forged patta, said to have been issued by his father in favour of the defendant No. 1 although his father never issued any such patta. The plaintiff has filed the suit with presentation of plaint on 16.1.2009. and with the assertions that he came to know about the sale deed on 8.1.2009 and obtained the copy thereof on 14.1.2009. The defandents have put the suit to contest on various grounds as taken in the written statement. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 also moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the code of civil procedure ('C.P.C.') raising various objection against the maintainability of the suit. 3. On 27.04.2009, after filing of the written statement, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the issues and also considered it just and proper to take up issues Nos. The petitioner-defendant No. 2 also moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the code of civil procedure ('C.P.C.') raising various objection against the maintainability of the suit. 3. On 27.04.2009, after filing of the written statement, the learned Trial Court proceeded to frame the issues and also considered it just and proper to take up issues Nos. 8 to 10 related with the objections taken in the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC at the first. The issues so framed by the learned Trial Court on 27.04.2009 read as under:- " ( 1 ) vk;k oknxzLr dkyk egy oknh ds firk Lo0 jko euksgjflag th csnyk ds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk Fkk ftuds fu/ku ds ckn ,dek= Lokeh o dkfct oknh gS\ & oknh ( 2 ) vk;k oknxzLr dkyk egy dk fodz; izfroknh la0 2 dks djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha Fkk ftlls fodz;i= cgd izfroknh la0 2 fnukad 19-1-2006 fcyk vf/kdkj] cstka ,o csvlj gksus ls oknh fujLr djkus dk vf/kdkj gS\ & oknh ( 3 ) vk;k izfroknh la0 2 ls oknxzLr dkyk egy dk dCtk oknh izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh ( 4 ) vk;k oknxzLr dkyk egy izfroknh la0 2 fdlh vU; dks varfjr gLrkarfjr ugha djs [kqnZcqnZ ugha djs ,slh okn LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh ( 5 ) vk;k oknxzLr dkyk egy dk iV~Vk izfroknh la0 1 ds gd esa fnukad 27-5-1954 dks jko euksgjflag csnyk }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k\ & izfooknh ( 6 ) vk;k Lo0 euksgjflag csnyk dh yMfd;ka 'kdjdaoj] fgEerdaoj] vkuan daoj rFkk iq= j?kqukFkflag dh iRuh o iq= fgEerflag] nhid okn esa vko';d i{kdkj gS\ & izfroknh ( 7 ) vk;k ikWoj vkWo vVksuhZ ds vk/kkj ij izLrqr okn pyus ;ksX; ugh gS\ & izfroknh ( 8 ) vk;k oknh dks okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gksrk gS\ & izfroknh ( 9 ) vk;k okn fe;kn ckgj gS\ & izfroknh ( 10 ) vk;k oknh us okn dk ewY;kadu de dj iw.kZ U;k;'kwYd vnk ugha fd;k gS\ & izfroknh ( 11 ) lgk;rk\ " 4. After such framing of the issues, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 moved an application on 19.05.2009 under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC while stating the names of his three sisters and two nephews and prayed for their impleadment as defendants with the submissions that the property in question being of Rao Manohar Singh Bedla, their impleadment was necessary in the interest of justice. Upon filing of this application, the learned Trial Court observed in its order dated 20.05.2009 that the questions concerning this application were already involved in issue No. 6 and hence, just and proper it would be to take up issue No.6 also as a preliminary issue alongwith issues Nos. 8 to 10, as already ordered. 5. It appears that the plaintiff attempted to challenge the said order dated 20.05.2009 by way of a writ petition (CWP No. 10070/2009) but this Court rejected the said writ petition on 16.11.2009 finding no justification on the plaintiff's grievance at the given stage because issue No. 6 was yet to be decided and the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC had not as such been rejected by the Trial Court. 6. Thereafter, on 18.03.2011, the learned Trial Court passed the order in relation to issues Nos.6 and 8 to 10. The defendant-petitioner No.2 is aggrieved of several parts of this order dated 18.03.2011 and hence, has preferred this writ petition. 7. The learned Trial Court took up for consideration issue No. 6 and the application moved by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC together and, observed that other heirs of Rao Manohar Singh Bedla though were not the necessary parties because an effective decree could well be passed even in their absence but, looking to the nature of the suit, were the proper parties. The learned Trial Court rejected the objections of the petitioner that the suit was required to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and ordered impleadment of other heirs of Rao Manohar Singh Bedla as mentioned in the application as defendants in the suit. 8. On the question regarding proper valuation and court fees as involved in issue No. 10, the learned Trial Court found the suit having not been properly valued and directed the plaintiff to properly value the suit and to file the amended plaint with proper court fees. 8. On the question regarding proper valuation and court fees as involved in issue No. 10, the learned Trial Court found the suit having not been properly valued and directed the plaintiff to properly value the suit and to file the amended plaint with proper court fees. This issue No. 10 is not the subject matter of this writ petition and is left at that only. 9. Issue No. 8 has been framed on the plea of the defendants that no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court referred to various objections of the parties and while observing that, prima facie, the suit did not appear hit by Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, expressed the view that various other questions involved in this issue could only be determined after evidence; and hence, this issue would be decided alongwith other issues. Similarly, in relation to issue No. 9 on the question of limitation, the learned Trial Court found that there were several question of facts involved therein about the validity of the patta and about the time of dispossession of the plaintiff and all such questions could, again, be determined after evidence. Thus, the learned Trial Court deferred the decision on this issue too for the later stage and after evidence. 10. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, the petitioner (the defendant No.2) has preferred this writ petition and it is contended that as per the pleaded facts, the other legal heirs of late Rao Manohar Singh Bedla were the necessary parties and for their non-joinder, the suit was required to be dismissed; and that the observations of the learned Trial Court that the suit was maintainable only by one of the legal heirs of late Rao Manohar Singh Bedla and was not hit by Rule 9 of Order I CPC are illegal and contrary to law. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Rule 10 (2) of Order I CPC because non-joinder of the other heirs of late Rao Manohar Singh Bedla was a deliberate attempt on the part of the plaintiff and such fundamental flaw in the suit could not have been remedied by impleadment of other heirs later. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the plaint makes it clear that it does not disclose any cause of action and that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Trial Court, according to the petitioner, has acted illegally in making observations otherwise, while dealing with issues Nos.8 and 9. 11. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having examined the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to entertain this writ petition. 12. So far the questions involved in issue No. 6 and the application under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC are concerned, the learned Trial Court has duly appreciated the facts of the case with reference to the pleadings of the parties and particularly those contained in the plaint before finding that the suit was not suffering from non-joinder of necessary parties; but the other heirs of late Rao Manohar Singh Bedla were the proper parties and hence, be joined as defendants. The learned Trial Court cannot be said to have committed any jurisdictional error in taking such a decision on issue No. 6 and the related application. Looking to the nature of the pleadings contained in the plaint, as referred in brief hereinbefore, the suit could not have been dismissed merely for non-joinder of other heirs of the father of the plaintiff. The effect of the pleadings taken by the parties would, of course, be a matter of consideration at the time of final decision of the suit but at this juncture and preliminary stage, the learned Trial Court appears to have acted within its parameters in allowing the application moved by the plaintiff and in permitting joinder of the other heirs as parties to the suit. 13. So far issues Nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, there appears no reason for the petitioner to state any grievance at all because final determination of the questions involved in both these issues has consciously been deferred by the learned Trial Court; and it has specifically been observed that for involvement of various factual aspects, these issues would be determined alongwith other issues after evidence. 14. 14. It goes without saying that when the Trial Court has not finally determined the said issues Nos.8 and 9, any observations made in their regard in the order impugned could only be taken as tentative expression of opinion at the given stage and not beyond. The learned Trial Court has also consciously qualified its observations as being of `prima facie' opinion. In fact, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the questions involved, these issues were not even required to be taken up at the initial stage. Be that as it may, when the learned Trial Court has consciously deferred the final decision on these issues for a stage after evidence, any observations made in their regard in the order impugned hardly give out a cause to the petitioner to maintain this writ petition.Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with the observations foregoing.Petition Dismissed. *******