JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of present writ petition within confines of the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code, are that the plaintiff Al-Furkan Education Trust filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, against the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, to the effect that the defendant be restrained from interfering in the ongoing construction of the plaintiff. 2. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioners preferred an application dated 08.02.2017 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking their impleadment, indicating therein that they are residents of the same colony and want to stall the ensuing construction of the plaintiffs, as the same was being raised without permission from the Municipal Corporation. It was also stated in the application that the Madarsa in question could not be constructed on the land, which was residential in nature and situated on narrow road of 14 feet. Said application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Trial Court, vide order impugned dated 09.02.2017, with the observation that no right of the petitioners is being affected by the subject suit and as such, the petitioners can not force themselves in the suit filed by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is 'dominus litis'. 3. Impugning the order dated 09.02.2017, Mr. D.D. Chitlangi, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the plaintiffs are illegally raising the construction, despite the fact that the Senior Town Planner has already rejected the construction permission sought by the plaintiffs; that the petitioner-applicants are residents of the same area and if the construction in question is allowed to be raised, it would adversely affect their rights; and that the defendants have connived with the plaintiffs. 4. I have considered the material available on record and the arguments advanced by Mr. Chitlangi. 5. The apprehension of the petitioners that the plaintiff is having hands in gloves with the Municipal authorities and the Municipal Corporation would not defend the suit properly, are merely subterfuges to ensure their presence in the suit proceedings and such apprehension is baseless. For the sake of argument, even if such apprehension is presumed to be correct, in firm opinion of this Court, it can not give a right to the petitioners to interject in the proceedings, pending before the Trial Court. For the sake of argument, even if such apprehension is presumed to be correct, in firm opinion of this Court, it can not give a right to the petitioners to interject in the proceedings, pending before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs have filed suit for adjudication of their own right. If the petitioners have any grudge or grievance on account of the construction in question, they should take recourse to their own remedies available under law. 6. This Court finds no error in the order impugned and no merit in the petition filed. Order dated 09.02.2017 is affirmed, while writ petition is rejected.