JUDGMENT : 1. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 17/5/2022 passed in SBCWP No. 6493/2022, wherein, learned Single Judge had ordered issuance of notice in the writ petition as well as stay petition and directed the parties to maintain status quo. 2. The respondent nos. 5 and 6, Rana Ram and Vishan Singh, filed SBCWP No.6493/2022 inter alia questioning the notice dated 11/2/2022 and 14/3/2022 issued by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Siwana District Barmer in case No. 53/2022 and 54/2022 under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’). 3. When the writ petition came up before the learned Single Judge for admission on 17/5/2022, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh has submitted that though the caveat has been filed on behalf of the person, who has filed public interest litigation with a prayer for removal of the encroachment made by certain persons on public land, in this writ petition but since the petitioners have not made him as party respondent in this writ petition, an application is filed on behalf of him for being impleaded as party respondent in this writ petition today itself. It is also submitted by Mr. Moti Singh that the copy of the writ petition is not supplied to him. It is noticed that the application for impleading as party respondent is not available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Uttam Singh has submitted that in the issue involved in this writ petition is identical to the issue involved in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.1378/2022 and 4681/2022, wherein this Court has already issued notices and also passed interim order. Learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh has submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is not identical to the issue involved in the above referred writ petitions as in those writ petitions the persons were in possession of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, whereas in the present case all the petitioners are in illegal occupants of the government land and, therefore, the Tehsildar has already initiated proceedings under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and also passed eviction order. The matter requires consideration. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well, returnable on 20.07.2022. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as it exists today, in respect to the land in question.” 4. The matter requires consideration. Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well, returnable on 20.07.2022. Meanwhile, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, as it exists today, in respect to the land in question.” 4. Feeling aggrieved of the above order, the present appeal along with an application seeking leave to file appeal under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 (‘the Rules, 1952’) has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under Rule 159 (3) & (4) of the Rules, 1952, any person claiming a right to appear before the Court on the hearing of the petition may lodge a caveat in the matter thereof and is entitled to receive notice of lodging of petition / require the petitioner to serve him with a copy of the petition and is also entitled to notice of hearing of the petition. However, when on 17/5/2022 the facts regarding filing of caveat and that as the appellant was not impleaded as party to the writ petition, he had filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition were brought to the notice of the Court, the learned Single Judge, without affording opportunity to the appellant to seek impleadment and make submissions has passed the order impugned and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record of SBCWP No. 6493/2022. 7. Apparently, the caveat said to have been filed by the appellant is not available on record of the writ petition. However, a perusal of the copy of the caveat said to have been filed by the appellant (Annex.A/5 to the appeal), reveals that besides the fact that it contains names of 36 possible petitioners, names of both the petitioners are missing, it is also seen that though the appellant has chosen to lodge a single caveat qua large number of proceedings initiated by the Tehsildar, Siwana, the misc. numbers of such proceedings indicated in the caveat do not contain the numbers pertaining to the petitioners in SBCWP No. 6493/2022 i.e. case nos. 53/2022 and 54/2022, as such, apparently, in absence of any caveat on record of the case and the caveat filed in the present appeal as Annex. numbers of such proceedings indicated in the caveat do not contain the numbers pertaining to the petitioners in SBCWP No. 6493/2022 i.e. case nos. 53/2022 and 54/2022, as such, apparently, in absence of any caveat on record of the case and the caveat filed in the present appeal as Annex. A/5 being unrelated to SBCWP No. 6493/2022, the claim made based on the provisions of Rule 159 (3) & (4) of the Rules, 1952 has no substance. 8. The further plea raised that as the appellant had made submissions that he has filed an application seeking impleadment before the Court on 17/5/2022, the Court should not have passed the order without deciding the application seeking impleadment and providing opportunity to the appellant to file reply also has no substance. It is not borne out from the record that the application was filed on 17/5/2022 as on the application filed for impleadment it has been indicated “copy sent on whatsapp to opposite counsel” and is signed dated 18/5/2022, the presentation seal by the office also indicates that the same was filed on 18/5/2022. 9. In that view of the matter, as the application for impleadment also had not been filed on 17/5/2022, the Court had rightly noticed that impleadment application was not available on record. 10. Despite the above, the learned Single Judge has noticed the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that the matter requires consideration and has ordered issuance of notice and has granted interim order, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not heard. 11. In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the caveat said to have been filed by the appellant did not pertain to SBCWP No. 6493/2022, the application for impleadment was filed on the next date of passing of the order dated 17/5/2022 and the order impugned being interlocutory in nature, no case is made out in the present special appeal for interference by this Court. 12. Admittedly, the application seeking impleadment filed by the appellant is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appellant has to pursue the said application and, thereafter, seek vacation of interim order, in case the appellant’s grievance subsists. 13. With the above observations, the present appeal is dismissed.