ORDER : Mr. Prakash Gupta, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 5th March, 2013, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sambharlake, District Jaipur, rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, they have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. It transpires that the plaintiff-non-petitioner Kailash Chand Mandhana and defendant non-petitioner No.2 Ramesh Chand Mandhana donated the land of Khasra No.507 to the Nagarik Vikas Samiti, Sambhar Lake and got the land transferred in the name of Samiti. The Samiti, lateron further donated the land in favour of Shakambhar Collage, Sambharlake. It seems that some dispute arose between Kailash Chand Mandhana and the petitioner collage, therefore, plaintiff-non-petitioner Kailash Chand Mandhana filed a civil suit against the defendant 2 petitioners and defendant non-petitioner Ramesh Chand Mandhana for permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit, defendant petitioners filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC for impleading the Nagrik Vikas Samiti, Sambhar as a party to the suit which has been rejected by the learned trial court by the order dated 5th March, 2013, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land of Khasra No.507 was donated by the plaintiff-non-petitioner and defendant No.3 Ramesh Chand Mandhana in favour of the Nagrik Vikas Samiti, therefore, the Samiti is a necessary party in the proceedings and the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the impugned order. It is revealed from the order dated 5th March, 2013 that only suit for permanent injunction has been filed against the Shakambhar Govt. College. The object of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C. to implead a third party to the suit is that the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. Admittedly, the plaintiff-non-petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chandra Mandhana have donated the land to Nagrik Vikas Samiti, which later on has donated the same to the Shakambhar Govt. Collage, Sambharlake. In view of this, no right, title or interest remains with the Nagrik Vikas Samiti. 5. There must be some semblance of right to the proposed party. Admittedly, the plaintiff-non-petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chandra Mandhana have donated the land to Nagrik Vikas Samiti, which later on has donated the same to the Shakambhar Govt. Collage, Sambharlake. In view of this, no right, title or interest remains with the Nagrik Vikas Samiti. 5. For the reasons recorded by the trial court in the impugned order rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, no perversity is found in the same. Hence, this writ petition being devoid of any merits is, dismissed.