JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 16.8.12 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.) No. 3, Jodhpur, whereby an application preferred by the applicants, the respondent no.4 to 11 herein, under Order I Rule 10 CPC, for impleading them as party defendants in the suit, has been allowed. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for eviction against the State of Rajasthan and others, the respondents no. 1 to 3 herein, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a property situated at Baiji Ka Talab, Jodhpur. The petitioner has sought declaration that the disputed property is his personal property and not a public property owned by any public trust. That apart, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings pending for registration of the public trust in respect of the disputed property. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the applicant-Mohan Lal and others, the respondents no.4 to 11 herein, preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as party defendants in the suit on the ground that their forefathers Gulabdas and Jaganath Dhoot had constructed a temple over the disputed property and therefore, they have exclusive right to manage the affairs of temple and public property in question. It was averred that the applicant-Jiwan Das is also an office bearer of the trust and presently working as 'Kothari' of the temple. According to the applicants, the petitioner-plaintiff is managing the property in question only as 'Mahant'. 4. The application was contested by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing a reply thereto. The averments made in the application noticed as above, were specifically denied. The petitioner claimed that no relief is sought by him against the applicants and therefore, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to contest the matter against the applicants. 5. After due consideration, the application has been allowed by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has allowed the application preferred by the respondents for impleading them as party defendants to the suit without assigning any reasons. 5. After due consideration, the application has been allowed by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has allowed the application preferred by the respondents for impleading them as party defendants to the suit without assigning any reasons. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants did not approach the court claiming their personal right rather, they approached the court as a representative of the public and therefore, they could not have been impleaded as party to the proceedings wherein the petitioner has claimed enforcement of his personal right over the property in question. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the respondent no. 4 to 11 and therefore, the question of impleading them as party to the proceedings, does not arise. Learned counsel submitted that the impleadment of the applicants shall enlarge the scope of the suit which is not permissible under the law. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute raised and therefore, the court below has apparently committed a jurisdictional error in impleading the respondents no. 4 to 11 as party to the proceedings. 7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 to 8 while supporting the order passed by the court below submitted that the petitioner is not the owner of the property rather, he is managing the property as 'Mahant' and cannot claim any right over the disputed property. It is submitted that the applicant-Jeewan Das, the respondent no.11 herein, filed a complaint before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, for registration of the property as public trust under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, which is pending consideration before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur and the petitioner has prayed in the instant petition for quashing the proceedings pending and therefore, the applicant-Jeewan Das is a necessary party in the suit. Learned counsel submitted that it is not even in dispute that the forefathers of respondents no. 4 to 11 constructed the temple over the land in question and the property is being managed by the trust and therefore, they are also interested in seeing that the disputed property is not grabbed and converted to personal use by the unscrupulous persons. 8. 4 to 11 constructed the temple over the land in question and the property is being managed by the trust and therefore, they are also interested in seeing that the disputed property is not grabbed and converted to personal use by the unscrupulous persons. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. As per the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10 (2), the court may at any stage add a person as a party to the suit as defendant or plaintiff, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 10. It is to be noticed that in the plaint filed before the court below, the petitioner has specifically averred that the applicant Jeewan Das made a complaint to the Department of Devasthan for registration of the disputed property as public trust under the provisions of the Act of 1959. The complaint was rejected by the authority concerned vide order dated 31.8.04. Aggrieved thereby, Jeewan Das preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was allowed vide order dated 7.1.09 and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, Jodhpur for consideration afresh. Indisputably, in the suit filed, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings pending before Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan, initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged on behalf of the applicant- Jeewan Das. In this view of the matter, Jeewan Das is necessary party in the matter and his presence is absolutely necessary for adjudication of the dispute raised. It is also a matter of record that the forefathers of the respondents no. 4 to 11 constructed and renovated the disputed temple/Samadhi, alleged to be the property of public trust. In this regard, a reply to the application preferred by one Shri Ishwar Das for registration of the public trust which is being now pursued by the applicant-Jeewan Das, filed on behalf of the petitioner placed on record as Annexure R/4, is self explanatory. 11. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the respondent no.11- Jeewan Das is a necessary party and the respondents no. 11. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this court, the respondent no.11- Jeewan Das is a necessary party and the respondents no. 4 to 11, if not necessary, are proper party in the suit and therefore, the court below has committed no jurisdictional error in impleading the applicants as party defendants in the suit, whose presence is considered necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute raised. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, no case for interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. 13. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******