JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners questioning the order dated 10.01.2012, whereby, the application filed by them under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading Chhitar and Rama S/o Shri Kalu Kharol as party defendant Nos.4 and 5 to the suit has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Chogga, Smt. Kanchani and Amba and prayed that for declaration for the way indicated in the map filed with the suit was the only way for reaching to his house and that there is no other way available for ingress and egress to his house and the defendants are not entitled to stop or block the said way. Permanent injunction was also sought against the defendants not to obstruct the way and permit the plaintiffs from using the said way. 3. A written statement was filed by the respondents herein and the averments made in the suit were denied. It was inter alia stated that the so called way claimed by the plaintiffs only partially relates to Araji of his ownership. 4. During pendency of the suit a local Commissioner was appointed and when he gave his report dated 11.06.2010 he indicated that part of the way claimed by the plaintiffs fell in Khasra No. 1940/2882 which belong to the Khatedar Chhitar and Rama sons of Kalu Kharol. 5. On finding that the way claimed by them fell in Khasra No. 1940/2882 also, the petitioner-plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Khatedars Chhitar and Rama as party defendants. 6. The application was opposed by the respondents on various grounds including that the application has been filed to delay the proceedings as already an injunction is operating in favour of the plaintiffs. 7. The learned trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that by impleading Chhitar and Rama as party defendants there is likelihood of nature of suit getting altered and also that relief can be granted even in the absence of Chhitar and Rama. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are ex facie incorrect. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are ex facie incorrect. The defendants proposed to be impleaded are necessary parties and the fact about the way claimed by them falling within the land of the proposed defendants only came to light when the Commissioner report was prepared and, therefore, in these circumstances, the petition deserves to be accepted. 10. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no reason for the plaintiffs to miss-out the fact that the disputed way claimed by the plaintiffs fell in Khasra belonging to proposed defendants and the suit was filed in absolutely vague terms and the Commissioner report is now sought to be used for the purpose of getting other parties impleaded against whom no cause of action has been shown in the original plaint and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 12. It is true that the averments made in the plaint regarding the existence of the way is not specific as to the said way falls in which Khasras and apparently the plaintiffs become wiser after the Commissioner report was submitted before the trial court. But then, once this fact has come on record that the disputed way falls in Khasra No. 1940/2882 also which belongs to Chhitar and Rama, they apparently are necessary parties and in their absence no effective relief could be granted to the petitioners in the suit. 13. The observations made by the learned trial court that presence of Chhitar and Rama is not necessary for the purpose of grant of relief as claimed by the plaintiffs is apparently incorrect and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.01.2012 is set aside and the application dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-4) filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 10.01.2012 is set aside and the application dated 09.08.2011 (Annexure-4) filed by the plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. Chhitar and Rama sons of Kalu Ji Kharol, resident of Menuli Kheda, Tehsil Sahada are impleaded as party defendants to the Suit No. 26/2010 pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapura (Bhilwara).The learned trial court is expected to proceed with the suit expeditiously after service of summons on the newly added defendants. No costs.Petition allowed. *******