JUDGMENT 1. - After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order dated 24.09.2011 as passed by the learned Trial Court dealing with a suit for perpetual injunction as filed by the plaintiff-petitioner. By the order impugned, the learned Trial Court has allowed an application moved by the applicant (respondent No. 3 herein) for being impleaded as a party defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure essentially on the consideration that the applicant had moved the application in his capacity as the Chairperson of Gram Sewa Sahakari Samti, Gajju, Tehsil & District Nagaur ('the Society'); and that the land in question forming the subject matter of the suit had been allotted by the Gram Panchayat concerned to the said society under Patta No. 22. 2. The learned Trial Court found that there had been allegations of encroachment on the land belonging to the society by the other persons including the plaintiff and if in relation to the land in question, the plaintiff seeks any injunction against the defendants, i.e., the Tehsildar and the Collector concerned, it shall have direct effect on the rights of the said society. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Court has found the applicant having a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and has allowed the application moved. 3. Seeking to question the order aforesaid, it is sought to be contended that the applicant, if asserting his rights, ought to have filed a separate suit and could not have been permitted to assert his rights in the suit as filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on his grievance against the interference by the defendants. 4. The submissions have their own shortcomings once it is noticed that the learned Trial Court has found, prima facie, from the material on record that the property forming the subject matter of the suit is allotted to the said society and there had been allegations of encroachment over this land of the society. The contents of the plaint (Annex. 1) also make it clear that the petitioner has sought the relief of injunction against his dispossession from the land in question with the allegations that the defendants were seeking to dispossess him in the name of certain complaints received. The contents of the plaint (Annex. 1) also make it clear that the petitioner has sought the relief of injunction against his dispossession from the land in question with the allegations that the defendants were seeking to dispossess him in the name of certain complaints received. 5. Obviously, as per the allegations in the plaint, the defendants were not claiming the land to be their own but said to be acting towards removing encroachment on applicant's land. When it has been shown before the learned trial Court that the allegations of encroachment were made by none other than the applicant himself; and the property belongs to the society represented by the applicant, joinder of the applicant in the suit cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality. As a result, this petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******