JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.9.2018, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the appellate Court or Court below), vide which petitioners application dated 23.3.2018 has been rejected. 2. The facts in nut shell are that the petitioner had filed a suit in the year 2002 seeking declaration impleading State Government and Tehsildar etc. as defendants. The suit so field by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 8.2.2012, whereagainst the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Court below. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved the subject application dated 23.3.2018 and sought to implead Municipality, Bhinder as a defendant No. 4. 4. The learned Court below rejected the petitioners said application vide order dated 26.9.2018, inter alia observing that the same neither discloses any cause against the municipality nor does it show any reason for which Municipality, Bhinder was required to be impleaded. 5. Assailing the order dated 26.9.2018, passed by the Court below Mr. Rajesh Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had earlier preferred a suit against the Municipality, Bhinder which came to be decreed by the competent civil Court on 3.9.2003, wherein dispute regarding same land was involved. Learned counsel contended that municipality be impleaded so that it can come before the appellate Court and apprise about the correct factual and legal position in relation to contentious land. 6. Mr. Bhurani, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners application was absolutely vague and did not show any reason for which the Municipality, Bhinder was required to be impleaded as defendant. He further contended that the municipality can be impleaded only if it has some interest in the lis or any relief has been sought against it. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. A simple look at the petitioners application dated 23.3.2018 shows that the petitioner has not disclosed any reason worth the name for which the municipality concerned can be roped in, that too after about 16 years of the filing of the suit and more particularly after 4 years of the pendency of appeal. 8. A simple look at the petitioners application dated 23.3.2018 shows that the petitioner has not disclosed any reason worth the name for which the municipality concerned can be roped in, that too after about 16 years of the filing of the suit and more particularly after 4 years of the pendency of appeal. The petitioner has not sought any relief from the concerned municipality nor any of the interest or rights of the municipality are under threat or even consideration in the appeal/suit in question. 9. That being the position, the learned Court below has committed no error of law in rejecting petitioners application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition fails and the same is, hereby dismissed. 11. The stay application No. 16557/2018 also stands rejected.