ORDER : – The parties are at loggerheads on the question of legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 10-3-2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing No. 84A/2015. In the suit it is alleged that the petitioner is owner of Survey No. 2467/9/1 min 2 and having way through Krishi Upaj Mandi. The Krishi Upaj Mandi is closing the way which is the easementary right of the petitioner. During pendency of civil suit, vide order dated 8-5-2018 Tehsildar, Tehsil Datia, declared Survey No. 2467 as Jungle, on which Krishi Upaj Mandi is situated. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading Forest Department as party respondent. The Forest Department denied the land to be of Forest Department and submitted that only Revenue Department can clarify the situation. On account of that, petitioner moved application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for impleading Government through Collector as party respondent, but the trial Court without deciding the controversy in the matter has rejected the application by the impugned order. Hence, prayed that for effective adjudication of the case and for avoiding multiplicity of the litigation it is necessary that the State Government be impleaded as party respondent. 3. Per Contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3 has opposed the petition and has submitted that the present petition is devoid of merits as the property belongs to Krishi Upaj Mandi, Datia. Hence, prayed for rejection of the petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and available record. 5. The trial Court by impugned order dated 10-3-2021 has passed the following order : – 6. On perusal of the aforesaid order impugned it is apparent that the trial Court has passed the order impugned in accordance with law, wherein it is specifically observed that the dispute exists between plaintiff and Krishi Upaj Mandi with regard to boundary wall and no any agricultural land is involved, therefore no relief could be sought against the State and provisions of Order 6, Rule 4(a) of Civil Procedure Code shall not be attracted. Despite above, aforesaid application was filed before the trial Court on the date fixed for recording of defendants’ evidence, which reflects the intention of the petitioner/plaintiff to linger on the suit and, therefore the trial Court has rightly rejected the application by imposing cost of Rs. 500/-. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances in totality, it is clear that the impugned order does not suffer from any manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner fails and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.