JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief: "(i) quash the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Suit No. 6/2018; and (ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioners under Orde 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC may be allowed with costs in toto; and (iii) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner." 3. The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith the temporary injunction application against the respondent No. 2 before the learned trial Court regarding his particular plots situated at Raati Talai, Banswara. 4. The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioner, who is the neighbour of respondent no. 1 and whose easementary rights are being affected, has filed an application for being impleaded as party, but his application has been dismissed by the learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to para 2 of the plaint, which is Annex. 1 of the writ petition, in which, it is stated that on 08.09.2017 & 14.09.2017, a notice has been said to be issued, but actually no notices were received. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter drawn attention of this Court to the said notices, which are also part of the pleading. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the photographs, which are on record, show that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are immediate neighbour and serious prejudice to the easementary right is being caused by the respondent no. 1, and therefore, the petitioners have right to contest the matter before the learned trial court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter has taken this Court to the complaint made by the petitioners against the respondent no. 1 on 08.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the notices issued on 08.09.2017 & 14.09.2017. 8. 1, and therefore, the petitioners have right to contest the matter before the learned trial court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter has taken this Court to the complaint made by the petitioners against the respondent no. 1 on 08.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the notices issued on 08.09.2017 & 14.09.2017. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter has taken this Court to the proceedings dated 15.02.2018 conducted by District Collector, Banswara whereby there is a noting upon the complaint of the petitioners that any construction beyond permissible limits shall not be permitted, and in case, any illegal construction is made, the same shall be demolished. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the respondent No. 1, in the garb of present suit, wants to vitiate the complaint made by the petitioners and in the interest of justice, they may be permitted to become a party to the proceedings below so that they can contest their rights. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in Naresh Taldar v. Kalimuddin Bohra & Anr. (SBCWP No. 6931/2018) decided on 16.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which reads as follows:- "6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusing record as well as precedent law cited by the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had made a complaint against the respondent no. 1 that he is encroaching upon the public way and the petitioner being resident of the same area, was directly affected and his right of way was allegedly being infringed by the respondent no. 1. The learned court below failed to appreciate that instituting a separate proceeding would unnecessarily create burden upon the system and once adjudication is happening, it should be comprehensive in nature and by merely by impleading the applicant-petitioner no injustice is going to be caused to the respondent no. 1. The precedent law cited by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is not applicable in the present case as a reading of para-15 of the judgment of Jasabhai Motibhai Desai (supra), it becomes clear there is a wide jurisdiction of the courts to scrutinize and to see ambit of aggrieved person. 1. The precedent law cited by learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is not applicable in the present case as a reading of para-15 of the judgment of Jasabhai Motibhai Desai (supra), it becomes clear there is a wide jurisdiction of the courts to scrutinize and to see ambit of aggrieved person. The expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic, and to an extent, an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanaklata Das & Ors. (supra) also does not apply as it was a dispute allegedly between landlord and tenant, which is strictly between the parties and obviously neighbourhood cannot be impleaded as party in those matter. 7. In the instant matter, the dispute is about a public land and the petitioner being residing in neighbourhood is directly affected as he claims to be suffering hardship due to alleged encroachment on public area of common way including that of the petitioner so he cannot be refused to be made a party as it was only on his complaint that the Municipal Council was taking action against the respondent no. 1. 8. In light of the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.2.2018 (Annex. 9) passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Suit No. 45/2016 and quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed for the prayers made therein." 11. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Jubin Mehta submits that the learned trial Court's order refusing the petitioners to become a party is justified, as the learned trial Court has held that the easementary rights are independent rights and in case, the petitioners are agreed then they have liberty to pursue the same by taking appropriate legal recourse. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that this suit has a limited prayer which is there in the plaint and the same prayer is only against the permission not being given by the Municipal Corporation and the hindrance being caused by the Municipal Corporation to enjoy his property by not giving proper permission. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 further submits that this suit has a limited prayer which is there in the plaint and the same prayer is only against the permission not being given by the Municipal Corporation and the hindrance being caused by the Municipal Corporation to enjoy his property by not giving proper permission. 13. This Court upon perusing the record of the case finds that the contention of easementary right is not the prayer sought by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 has merely sought his permission and enjoyment prayer from the learned trial Court strictly against the Municipality. Learned trial Court while deciding the case has rightly observed that easementary right is independent right and thus, in case the petitioners want to pursue the same, they are always free to take-up appropriate legal recourse. Learned trial Court has also observed that the easementary right have not been defined in the application and the same are not a subject matter of the present suit. This Court also takes note of the fact that the precedent law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the encroachment over a common road is not applicable in the present case, as the core adjudication was common to contesting parties in that case. Thus, the order passed by the learned trial court is justified and does not call for any interference. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed accordingly.