JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.5.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge Nathdwara (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) whereby an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the applicant-respondent No.3 herein seeking her impleadment, has been allowed. 2. The facts apropos for the present purposes are that on 4.5.2016, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction interalia praying that the defendants No.1 & 2-respondents No.1 & 2 herein be called upon to transfer the tenancy of the subject shop in his name. 3. Laxmi Devi-respondent No.3 (plaintiff’s mother) filed an application dated 8.11.2016 in the said suit and sought her impleadment in the proceedings. The said applicant contended that the plaintiff is her son and he alongwith her other sons have been carrying on the business in the said shop, and the plaintiff was getting salary from the business being run in the subject shop. It was further contended that as the shop in question had been let out to her husband, she is a necessary party. 4. After considering the facts obtaining in the present case the Court below allowed the said application filed by the respondent No.3 interalia observing that the applicant has substantial right and interest in the subject matter of the suit and if she is not impleaded, the decision of the suit may prejudice her rights. 5. Mr. Shishodiya-learned counsel for the petitioner questioning legality and proprietory of the order of impleadment dated 22.5.2018 contended that learned trial Court has erred in allowing the application dated 8.11.2016. It was also contended that the grand-father of the petitioner/plaintiff had executed a registered will dated 28.5.2011 in his favour, whereby the tenancy rights of contentious shop No.4 has been bequeathed to him. He further apprised that there are various litigations pending between the petitioner and applicant-respondent No.3 and their other family members, and the applicant-respondent No.3 has sought her impleadment only with a view to harass and frustrate the rights of the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner; upon perusal of the material available on record; and keeping into consideration the extant facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant-respondent No.3-Laxmi Devi is a necessary and proper party in the present suit proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner; upon perusal of the material available on record; and keeping into consideration the extant facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant-respondent No.3-Laxmi Devi is a necessary and proper party in the present suit proceedings. The assertion made by the applicant that before death of her husband-plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff as well as her husband and other sons were carrying on the business in the said shop, requires due adjudication by the trial Court. In the present suit proceedings, the presence of the applicant-respondent No.3 is not only expedient, rather, it is necessary, keeping in view the nature of the suit, filed by the plaintiff wherein he has sought directions qua the defendant No.2 to execute a rent note in his favour. The facts available on record shows that the parties are embroiled in numerous litigations. 7. Hence, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. 8. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.