JUDGMENT 1. - Taking help from the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and on the application of respondents no. 4 to 11, Civil Judge(SD), Makarana, District Nagaur, by impugned order dated 12.4.2012 in Civil Original Case No. 5/2010(New No.12/2011) titled as Smt. Samina v. State of Rajasthan & ors., has allowed respondents no. 4 to 11 to become defendants in the said suit. That order has been challenged by the petitioner who was plaintiff in the said suit. 2. I have heard both the parties. 3. The petitioner has argued that the impugned order is against the law and so it should be quashed. The petitioner relies upon the following rulings:- (1) Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : (1992 AIR SCW 846). (2) Smt. Jahuran v. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmed & ors. S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO. 3493/2011 decided on 20.5.2011. (3) Smt. Maina & ors. v. The State of Raj. & anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.854/2011 decided on 11.5.2011. (4) Kishan Sharma & anr. v. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & ors., 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 492 (5) Sumat Kumar Jain Y ors. v. Pramod Kumar Agarwal & anr., RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1661. 4. I have perused the rulings. In all these cases it has been held that every one cannot be called necessary or proper party. Any one claiming to be proper party, must have direct or legal interest in the litigation. If relief has not been claimed by the plaintiff against some persons then those persons cannot be called necessary party and they cannot get an order to become defendants in the matter. 5. I have perused the order of the lower court and I have perused the documents submitted in the file. I have also perused the application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code before the court below. It has been submitted on behalf of respondents no. 4 to 11 that relief sought in Civil Suit No. 5/2010 (new No. 12/2011) pending in the court of Civil Judge(SD), Makarana and in Civil Suit No. 27/2010 pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Parbatsar is overlapping and decision of the suit which is pending in the court of Civil Judge(SD), Makarana will directly affect the rights of the plaintiff in the civil suit pending in the court of Addl. District Judge, Parbatsar. District Judge, Parbatsar. In such type of cases, generally both the suits should have been tried by the same court and an order in this regard could have been passed by this Court but the petitioner-plaintiff is not ready that the two suits should be tried by one court and she is also not ready for clubbing of two cases also, so in the circumstances of the case, there is no option left with respondents no. 4 to 11 except to become party in civil suit pending in the court of Civil Judge (SD), Makarana to protect their interests. 6. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Civil Judge(SD),Makarana appears to be fully justified. The order is neither perverse nor arbitrary. It cannot be said to have been passed in flagrant abuse of powers too. 7. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.4.2012, which is hereby upheld. The petition of the plaintiff-petitioner is hereby dismissed and the the stay petition also stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below immediately.Petition dismissed. *******