JUDGMENT : Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging validity of Order dated 24.2.2007 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. on 8.2.2007 in civil Original Suit No. 51/2004 was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are the Respondents No. 2 and 3 along with one Late Nathmal and Late Bhanwar Lal preferred a suit before the learned District Judge Bikaner seeking declaration and possession of the situated at Jail road known as Kharnadmath belonging to Swarnkar community and Gold smiths against the then Mahant of Kharnadmath Late Rajgiri. In the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. was also filed by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in which petitioner was impleaded as party, however, he was not impleaded as party in the suit. The said application was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 32/1995 in which an order was passed on 24.11.2001 to maintain status quo. Late Rajgiri submitted a written statement and specifically disputed that in Math Kharnada, there are various temples of Lord Shiva, Lord Hanuman and Lord Bheruji and pointed out that patta on the basis of which the plaintiffs are claiming right to the property forged because said patta has been cancelled in the earlier litigation. Further, it was stated that entire land is in possession of Late Shri Rajgiri and he is responsible for all the acts and worships. 3. Late Rajgiri expired on 15.12.1990 and during his life time, he appointed Ghanshyam son of the petitioner as the disciple and also made a Will of the property in his favour. After death of Rajgiri, the petitioner and petitioner's son was declared as Mahant of the Math on 13.12.1990, therefore, after death of Late Rajgiri, the property vested with the petitioner and his son Ghanshyam. The son of petitioner Ghanshyam moved an application 5.4.1994 that Rajgiri and expired therefore, the suit stands abated, however, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application vide Order dated 2.12.1996 on the ground that since the son of petitioner Ghanshyam, moved an application under Order 22, Rule 4A C.P.C. to declare himself as legal representative, his application for abatement of suit is rejected. The Order dated 2.12.1996 was challenged by way of filing Writ Petition before this Court but the same was also dismissed vide Judgment dated 24.5.2000. It is worthwhile to observe that aforesaid application was moved by the petitioner because his son was minor at that time. 4. Petitioner after the death of Rajgiri, moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead as party to the suit being the person in possession of the property along with his son who was declared as Mahant after the death of lie Rajgiri on 15.12.1990. In the application reply was filed by the Respondent No. 2 and Moolchand on 13.2.2007 and said application came up for consideration before the learned Trial Court but the learned Trial Court rejected the said application vide Order dated 24.2.2007 on the ground that since earlier application filed by the petitioner claiming himself as legal representative of Late Rajgiri has been rejected and upheld by the High Court, therefore, petitioner and his son cannot claim themselves as the legal representatives of Late Rajgiri only on the ground that they are discipline of Late Rajgiri and working in the temples situated upon the property in question so also on the death of Mahant, the right to succession does not arise. 5. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is challenging validity of Order dated 24.2.2007 whereby, application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. in the Original Suit No. 51/2004 was rejected. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in possession of the land in question, therefore, rejection of his application filed under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. is totally illegal. Further, it is submitted that respondent plaintiff himself impleaded the petitioner as party to the litigation in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., therefore, there is no question to deny impleadment as party in the suit, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. Further, it is submitted that respondent plaintiff himself impleaded the petitioner as party to the litigation in an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., therefore, there is no question to deny impleadment as party in the suit, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that reason incorporated in the order of rejection of application has no relevance so far as impleadment as party under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. is concerned because earlier an application filed by the petitioner and his son under Order 22, Rule 4A C.P.C. was rejected by the Trial Court and upheld by this Court but decision of earlier application cannot be a ground for rejection of application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. The rejection of application filed by the petitioner and son for being impleaded as legal representatives under Order 22, Rule 4A C.P.C. has no relevance. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is claiming impleadment on the ground that he is in possession of the property in question which is evident from the Order dated 2.2.2005 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 105/2005, therefore, obviously petitioner is entitled to be impleaded as party on the ground that he is in possession of the land in question for which suit has been filed by the respondents and impugned Order dated 24.2.2007 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, Counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner Moolchand Bharti has nothing to do with the property in question because neither Will was executed in his favour by the then Mahant Rajgiri nor he can claim any right over the land in question because according to himself, earlier application was filed under Order 22, Rule 4A in the suit by petitioner being representative of his minor son. Learned Trial Court while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10C.P.C. specifically observed that Late Mahant Rajgiri was given right for sewa puja by the Swarnkar society, therefore, title of the land in dispute remained with the Swarnkar society. Learned Trial Court while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10C.P.C. specifically observed that Late Mahant Rajgiri was given right for sewa puja by the Swarnkar society, therefore, title of the land in dispute remained with the Swarnkar society. Further, learned Trial Court observed that in the proceedings in the suit, order was passed upon application filed under Order 22, Rule 5 C.P.C. by Ghanshyam whereby, Trial Court rejected the prayer of petitioner's son to treat him as legal successor of Late Shri Rajgiri Mahant on the basis of Will. The said order was affirmed by the High Court, therefore, there is no error in the order impugned dated 24.2.2007 because the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party in the dispute in question. 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned dated 24.2.2007. Admittedly, petitioner is claiming impleadment only on the basis of possession but in fact, there is no material on record to prove the fact of his possession. More so, according to pleading of his Writ Petition, petitioner himself stated that Mahant Rajgiri expired on 15.12.1990 and during his life time, he appointed Ghanshyam son of petitioner as disciple and also made a Will of the property in his favour. An application was filed by the petitioner in his favour. An application was filed by the petitioner on behalf of his son under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. before the Trial Court which was dismissed vide Order dated 7.8.2002 by the Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 1, Bikaner, therefore, I am of the opinion-that petitioner is a stranger with regard to property in question because neither-he has right over the land in question nor he was appointed by the Late Rajgiri as his disciple and executed any document in his favour with regard to his right, therefore, learned Trial Court after considering entire facts and the fact that earlier application filed by the petitioner under Order 22, Rule 4 C.P.C. has already been rejected by the Trial Court vide Order dated 7.8.2002, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be impleaded as party. 10. In my opinion, no error has been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as party respondent. Hence, this Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.