ORDER : ANANT S. DAVE, J. 1. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 2. Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant in this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent would contend that vide judgment dated 21.12.2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 7551 of 2009 the learned Single Judge allowed the applicants to be impleaded as parties respondent no. 4 & 5 upon averments made in application and submissions made by them in writ petition filed by appellant/original petitioner. 2.1 Before us it is vehemently contended that since the appellant – original petitioner in whose favour the certificate of exemption under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act was already granted, no tenancy would survive and no tenant can claim right of tenancy. 2.2 In addition to above, it is submitted that not an iota of evidence was produced by the applicants either documentary or oral in support of their case that either they were proper or necessary parties in the writ petition and simply based on averments made in the application and submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant, the learned Single Judge no doubt discussed scope of application for impleadment in the context of various provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decisions on proper and necessary parties and other such decisions in context of exercise of powers and discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cull out an application for impleadment is contrary to and the same will be touching merit of proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge as per the revenue authorities. According to learned advocate for the appellants, belated awakening of respondents – original claimants invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was with ulterior motive and to see that somehow they are able to plead and establish their rights as tenants which was not their. It cannot be said that the applicants were either proper or necessary party in the context of challenge to the order passed by the revenue authorities by the petitioner in a writ petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with. 3. As against above, Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Accordingly, it is submitted that order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be interfered with. 3. As against above, Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Vikram Thakor, learned advocate for the respondents no. 4 & 5 – applicants for impleadment before the learned Single Judge would contend that upon exhaustive analysis of case laws and Civil Procedure Code in juxtaposition to the discretion to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, deeming it just and proper that final outcome of the writ petition would have bearing on the pending proceedings before the Mamlatdar and ALT and therefore impleading the respondents no. 4 & 5 as parties based on exercise of judicial discretion upon principles enumerated by various decisions of the Apex Court, learned Single Judge has ordered impleadment which requires no interference. Accordingly, it is submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. Having gone through the judgment under challenge whereby the learned Single Judge ordered impleadment of applicants as respondents no. 4 & 5 in the writ petition and submissions made by learned counsels appearing for the respective parties along with perusal of entire record in the judgment containing more than 53 paragraphs in 36 pages' order, the learned Single Judge after recording submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and raising objection to impleadment also recorded submission made by learned counsel for the original petitioner and upon analysis of arguments and case laws decided by the Apex Court in para 50 concluded as under: “50. In the case on hand, one thing is very clear. Both the sides I.e. the applicants, who propose themselves to be impleaded in the main matter as well as the original petitioner wants this Court to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT. To this extent, the parties are at one. The problem has cropped up because the original petitioner has declined to recognize any rights of the applicants and other farmers of any nature in the subject land. I take notice of the fact that the original petitioner I.e. the trust did try to take shelter of the applicants herein and other farmers by submitting before the Mamlatdar & ALT that certain parcels of land are in possession of the tenants and those tenants are cultivating the land. I take notice of the fact that the original petitioner I.e. the trust did try to take shelter of the applicants herein and other farmers by submitting before the Mamlatdar & ALT that certain parcels of land are in possession of the tenants and those tenants are cultivating the land. Such a stance at the end of the original petitioner obvisiously would be for the purpose of ensuring that the land is not declared as excess vacant land under the provisions of the Act, 1961. It is also true that the very same order impugned in the main petition has been made a subject matter of challenge by the applicants and other farmers by preferring a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. However, the applicants are worried about the final outcome of the petition. If the petition is ultimately rejected then, probably, it may have its own implications so far as the rights as asserted by the applicants are concerned. In such circumstances, they would also like to join in the litigation and try to convince the Court that the impugned order passed by the Mamlatdar & ALT deserves to be quashed. I have looked into the matter from a different angle too, i.e. if ultimately the main petition is rejected, probably, the appeal preferred by the applicants herein before the appellate authority may become infructuous. In such circumstances, the final outcome of the petition may have some bearing so far as the applicants are concerned, because they would be bound by the final result of the petition.” 4.1 The above conclusion for the purpose of impleading original applicants as party respondents in our humble view cannot be said to be either improper exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to warrant any interference by this court in appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. We are of the view that observations made in paragraph no. 50 of the judgment under challenge are only for the purpose of allowing and passing the order for impleadment and cannot be constituted to have touching the merit of the writ petition which can be disposed of on its own merit and based on evidence on record and submissions which may be made at the time of final hearing of the parties before the learned Single Judge or the revenue authorities. 5. 5. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Civil Application also stands disposed of accordingly. Interim relief if any shall stand vacated.