JUDGMENT : ” The order dated 9.1.2014 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8920/2013 directing the respondent No.1 herein to be impleaded as a party in civil misc.application No.132A/2010 is under challenge in the instant appeal. 2. We have heard Mr.S.P.Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Facts in brief necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the appellant-herein had filed an application under section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' ) which was registered as civil misc. application No.132A/2010 praying for grant of letter of administration to him vis-a-vis the property set out therein. Though a public notice of the said proceeding was thereafter published in the local dailies, none did enter appearance to record any objection to his claim. It was at that stage that the respondent No.1 herein (writ-petitioner) filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as ' the Code' ) seeking impleadment. By the order dated 9.5.2013, the learned trial court having rejected the prayer for impleadment, the respondent No.1 invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. By the order impugned, the above direction has been issued. 4. The pleaded case of the appellant is that he in the capacity of the lone disciple of Swami Shri Ramanandji Maharaj caste Jatiya, who had established a hermitage in the name of Jigyasu Ashram (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Ashram') at Pipar City District Jodhpur, on his demise, succeeded to his properties. According to him, subsequent thereto, he managed the affairs of the Ashram and performed all religious and charitable functions of the Jatiya Samaj. As in the course of his duties, he faced various problems, he submitted an application on 23.1.2009 to the SDO, Pipar City for issuance of Chela-Pramanpatra (Disciple Certificate) of Swami Shri Ramanandji Maharaj, which was granted in his favour by the Municipal Board, Pipar City. It was thereafter, for better administration of the property of the Ashram that he filed the application under section 278 of the Act. 5. Contra to this, the pleaded case of the respondent No.1 herein is that it is a juristic person. It was thereafter, for better administration of the property of the Ashram that he filed the application under section 278 of the Act. 5. Contra to this, the pleaded case of the respondent No.1 herein is that it is a juristic person. According to it, the Jigyasu Ashram has moveable and immoveable properties including agricultural land, which are vested in Jatiya Samaj Sadhu Ashram managed by the panchas and members of the said Society from time immemorial. It is denied that the Ashram property had ever vested in late Swami Shri Ramanandji Maharaj and that following his death, the same had devolved in the appellant. Questioning the authority of the Municipal Board, Pipar City to issue any certificate regarding succession in favour of the appellant, it has alleged that he (appellant) meanwhile has illegally sold away about 50 bighas of land of the Ashram and has also disposed of various moveable and immoveable properties thereof following the death of Swami Ramanandji Maharaj. According to it, in order to stop such illegal activities, it prayed for its impleadment in the proceeding before the learned trial court. It claimed itself to be a duly registered Society and thus, a juristic person. 6. The learned Single Judge referring to various documents filed by the respondent No.1 herein with its writ petition i.e. patta dated 12.4.1949, its registration certificate, constitution, byelaws, photographs etc., sustained its plea observing that the letter of administration ought not to be issued to the appellant without affording it (respondent No.1) an opportunity of hearing. Without commenting on the merits of the claims of the parties, the learned single Judge thus interfered with the order dated 9.5.2013 of the trial court and concluded that the respondent No.1 was entitled to join and contest the proceedings as non-applicant No.4. 7. Mr.Sharma has emphatically argued that as the resopndent No.1 is not a juristic person, it could not have been allowed to be impleaded in the proceeding under section 278 of the Act. Further, it was not a necessary party having regard to the relief prayed for therein. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded case to the extent necessary at this stage and the documents on record, we are not convinced by the grounds urged. Further, it was not a necessary party having regard to the relief prayed for therein. 8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the pleaded case to the extent necessary at this stage and the documents on record, we are not convinced by the grounds urged. To start with, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 had been under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and a plain perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the adjudication had been made by construing the petition to be under Article 227 of the Constitution and thus, the observations made and the directions issued would have to be construed in that perspective. In that view of the matter, the instant appeal under Rule 134 of the High Court Rules, 1952 is not maintainable in law. 9. Be that as it may, even otherwise having regard to the rival pleadings, we are of the opinion that the respondent No.1 cannot be discarded as an unnecessary party and its presence would rather ensure a fair, complete and final adjudication of the issues involved. In no case, in our view, the presence of the respondent No.1 can be construed to be impermissible in law. In this view of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned order. We make it clear that we have not touched upon the merits of the claims of the parties and the learned trial court would be free to do so without being influenced by any of the observations made herein. 10. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.