JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.02.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Udaipur (South) (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby impleadment application filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 has been allowed. 2. Succinctly stated, facts relevant for the present purposes are that the present petitioner filed a suit for injunction impleading Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur as sole defendant. In the suit aforesaid filed by the petitioner, the respondents No.2 and 3 moved an application dated 14.05.2012 seeking their impleadment, which has been allowed by the Trial Court, vide order dated 26.02.2018. 3. The basic premises, for which the learned Trial Court allowed the aforesaid impleadment application was petitioner's assertion and averments made in para Nos. 8 to 11 of the plaint, in which he has made number of allegations while giving reference of the pending litigation between them. 4. Mr. Tribhuwan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has neither sought any relief against respondents No.2 and 3, nor any of their rights are likely to be effected by the injunction sought by it in the suit aforesaid, with these submissions, it was argued that the Trial Court has erred in accepting respondents' impleadment application. 5. Mr. Naerndra Thanvi, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 - applicants argued that petitioner's plaint is full of assertion and allegations against the answering respondents and there is every likelihood that some order and observation would be passed against respondents No.2 and 3. As such, learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in accepting their impleadment application. He argued that in any case, this Court should not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to reverse an otherwise discretionary order of impleadment. 6. On Court's query with respect to assertion made in para 8 to 11, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these averments are incidental and they have been made to complete the narration of facts. They have no co-relation with the relief sought by the petitioner plaintiff. 7. He submitted that the Court may strike off the pleadings mentioned in para Nos. 8 to 11 and all other averments, which concern the respondents No.2 and 3. 8. They have no co-relation with the relief sought by the petitioner plaintiff. 7. He submitted that the Court may strike off the pleadings mentioned in para Nos. 8 to 11 and all other averments, which concern the respondents No.2 and 3. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the plaint and the antecedent facts such as institution of suit by respondents No.2 and 3; their filing an application under Section 251A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, seeking right of way from petitioner's land and thereafter changing their stand and seeking right of way from other agricultural land etc. This Court is of the firm view that none of the rights of the respondents No.2 and 3 are endangered. 9. The petitioner has not sought any relief against the respondents No.2 and 3, nor any of their rights are likely to be effected, more particularly after averments made in para Nos. 8 to 11 are struck off. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed; the order dated 26.02.2018, passed by the Trial Court is quashed and set aside. 11. The petitioner shall file an application seeking deletion of averments made in para Nos. 8 to 11 and so also any other averments made qua respondents No.2 and 3. Learned Trial Court shall permit the same, in terms of the order instant. 12. The suit shall proceed only thereafter. Needless to observe that after deletion of the names of respondents No.2 and 3 from the array of the defendants, no order or observation made by the Trial Court shall impact their rights. 13. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.