JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petition have been preferred by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- IN SBCWP No.1958/2019:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate, order or direction-i) the impugned Order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexrue-7) passed by Respondent No. 1 may be interfered, quashed and set aside. IN SBCWP No.1583/2019:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted, order under challenge dated 18.01.2019 Annexure-05 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and application Annexure-02 filed by the respondent-applicant may kindly be rejected.” IN SBCWP No.1584/2019:- “It is therefore respectfully prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be accepted, order under challenge dated 18.01.2019 Annexure-05 passed by the learned trial court may kindly be quashed and set aside and application Annexure-02 filed by the respondent-applicant may kindly be rejected.” 2. Since in all these cases, common questions of facts and law are involved, therefore, these writ petitions are being decided by this common order. 3. For sake of brevity, all the facts have been taken from the writ petition No.1958/2019. 4. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents; District Collector, Barmer, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Barmer, and the Assistant Engineer (Rural), Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘JVVNL’), Barmer, before the court of Respondent No.1-Civil Judge, Barmer; which suit came to be registered as Civil Suit Nos.101/2018, 103/2018 and 112/2018. 5. By way of the order dated 17.07.2004 passed by District Collector, Barmer, Respondent No. 3, land admeasuring 3 bighas in Khasra No. 299/6 (New Khasra No. 405/299) of Village Daruda was allotted to the Petitioner-Plaintiff for the purposes of setting an industry, on which the Petitioner established the stone crushing business. 6. The Petitioner-Plaintiff came to receive a notice dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which it was contended that the Petitioner has encroached on the land of the Animal Husbandry Department, i.e.; Khasra No. 397/290 and consequently the Petitioner-Plaintiff was asked to remove the stone crushing business thereon. 6. The Petitioner-Plaintiff came to receive a notice dated 28.08.2018 issued by the Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Respondent No. 4, pursuant to which it was contended that the Petitioner has encroached on the land of the Animal Husbandry Department, i.e.; Khasra No. 397/290 and consequently the Petitioner-Plaintiff was asked to remove the stone crushing business thereon. Despite Petitioner-Plaintiff's detailed reply dated 11.09.2018, the land in question has been allotted to the Petitioner after following due-process and on which the Respondent Animal Husbandry Department is not claiming title adverse to the Petitioner, thus, there was no occasion for the Respondent No. 4 to proceed with the eviction notice. Then the Petitioner came to receive a notice dated 04.09.2018 issued by JVVNL, Respondent No. 5, threatening to disconnect Petitioner's electricity connection holding the Petitioner to be trespasser on the basis of intimation received from Respondent No. 4. 7. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred the instant Civil Suit No. 101/2018 before the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, respondent No.1, praying for permanent injunction against respondent No.3 to 5 from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question as well as from uprooting Petitioner's stone crushing machine from the land in question. 8. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 18.09.2018 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. However, simultaneously, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) was moved by Shri Shaitan Singh, Respondent No. 2 for impleading him as a party respondent in the suit. 9. In response to the application filed by Shri Shaitan Singh, Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner Plaintiff submitted a detailed reply. The learned trial court vide order dated 18.01.2019 allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 filed by the Respondent No. 2. 10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 18.01.2019 passed by respondent No. 1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 11. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that the respondent No.2, who is a complainant, is not a necessary party to the suit below, as the petitioners have not claimed any relief against him in the suit. 11. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that the respondent No.2, who is a complainant, is not a necessary party to the suit below, as the petitioners have not claimed any relief against him in the suit. Learned counsels for the petitioners also submit that an application filed by the respondent No.2 also does not reveal that how he is a necessary party to the suit and what prejudice would be caused to him, if the suit below is decided without impleading him as a party respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the respondent No.2 has misleaded while stating that he is a resident of village Marudi and the petitioner firm has installed the stone crushing machine at village Daruda at Khasra No.397/289 adjoining to the land of the respondent No.2. 12. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 is not a well reasoned order, as the learned court below without giving any finding and reasoning in its order as to how, the respondent No.2 is a necessary party, has allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 13. Learned counsels for the petitioner appearing in SBCWP Nos.1583/2019 and 1584/2019, submits that the respondent No.2 has preferred the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Annexure-2) in order to harass the petitioner, which is evident, as, in the title, name of the petitioner firm “M/s Mahadev Stone Crushing Company” is mentioned. However, in the pleadings, name of the firm has been mentioned as “M/s Bhagwati Crushers Stone”. Thus, the respondent No.2 has copied the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the suit filed by M/s Bhagwati Stone Crushers Stone and the same matter ahs been taken up by way of filing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the suit filed by M/s Mahadev Stone Crushing Company. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the catena of judgments passed by this Court to prove their case, which are as follows:- (1) Prabhuram and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.13632/2017). (2) Sarfaraz S/o Ahemed Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(SBCWP No.16186/2019). (3) Girdhari Lal Vs. Nagar Parishad & Anr. reported in (AIR 1988 Rajasthan 128). (4) Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Sharad Kumar Sharma & Ors. (SBCWP No.9124/2019). Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.13632/2017). (2) Sarfaraz S/o Ahemed Ali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(SBCWP No.16186/2019). (3) Girdhari Lal Vs. Nagar Parishad & Anr. reported in (AIR 1988 Rajasthan 128). (4) Surendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Sharad Kumar Sharma & Ors. (SBCWP No.9124/2019). (5) Kishan Sharma & Anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat & Ors. [ (2012) 3 CivCC 670 ]. (6) Rajendra Kumar S/o Sohanlalji Balotiya & Ors. Vs. Rameshchandra S/o Rupalji Kakhani & Ors. (SBCWP No.12331/2016). (7) Shriji Marriage Hall Vs. Civil Judge (J.D.) and Judicial Magistrate, First Division, Sawaimadhopur & Ors. (SBCWP No.15019/2013). He also places reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, titled as Ramesh & Anr. Vs. Sudhakar & Ors. reported in [ (2013) 3 ALLMR 196 ] and M.V. Sirur S/o V.R. Sirur Vs. Najmunnisa Begaum W/o Late Kamar Mohammed & Ors. (Writ Petition No.373/2017), respectively. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he is a necessary party to the lis, as it was upon his complaint filed before the respondents way back in the year 2005 that the appropriate action has been taken against the petitioners. He submits that as he is residing adjoining to the land in question where the stone crushing machine is installed, day in and day out, he is facing serious situation of pollution and thus, he is a necessary party to the lis, particularly when he is a resident of the village. He also submits that in the Site Inspection Report (Annexure-R2) prepared by the Naib Tehsildar No.2, Barmer dated 11.07.2018, a categorical finding has been given that two crushing units have been installed at the site in question and therefore, the respondent No.2 is a necessary party in order to demonstrate before the Court that the petitioners have illegally installed the stone crushing machines upon the government land as the petitioners are the encroachers, who ought to be dispossessed from the land in question. 16. 16. In rejoinder to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioners, jointly submit that the said contention of the respondent No.2 that he has been agitated the cause before the respondents since the year 2005, is absolutely false and frivolous, as in the application dated 09.11.2017 filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, he has specifically said that it was for the first time, that the petitioner took up the issue with the District Collector, Barmer. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the village where the stone crushing machines have been installed, is about 10 kms away from the village Maruda, Tehsil and District Barmer, where the respondent No.2 is residing and thus, the contention of the respondent No.2 that he is residing on the land adjoining to the land in question, is absolutely misleading. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 18. This Court finds that a suit for permanent injunction, has been preferred by the petitioners with specific prayers, claiming relief against the respondents District Collector, Barmer, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Barmer and the Assistant Engineer (Rural), JVVNL, Barmer, restraining them from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in question as well as not stopping the operation of the stone crushing machines, and that the electricity connection given in the land in question may not be disconnected. Prayers of the suits are reproduced hereunder:- “SBCWP No.1958/2019:- 11- fd oknh dh okn izLrqr dj fuEu vuqrks"k izkfIr dh izkFkZuk gS fd d&fd oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr dh tk;s fd oknh QeZ ds uke ls Jheku ftyk dysDVj ckMesj }kjk vkacfVr ekStk n:Mk ds u;s [kljk ua 405@299 jdck 3 chxk Hkwfe ij ls izfroknhx.k oknh dks csn[ky ugh djs mlds ds'kj dks can ugha djkosA ¼[k½ fd izfroknh la[;k 3 ds fo:) fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tjk;s fd os oknh dh mDr vkacfVr Hkwfe tgka ij ds'kj yxk gqvk gS ml Hkwfe ij yxs fo|qr dusD'ku dks foPNsn ugh djsA [k& bl ckn dk leLr O;; oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyok;k tk;sA x& vU; vuqrks"k tks ckn ckn fopkj.k esa oknh ds i{k esa gks lkfcr gks lkfnj Qjek;s tkosA SBCWP No.1583/2019:- vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ,oa foizkFkhZx.k ds fo:) rkQSlyk okn bl vk'k; dh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd izkFkhZ ds uke ls Jheku ftyk dysDVj ckMesj }kjk vkacfVr ekStk n:Mk ds u;s [kljk uacj 406@299 jdck 5 chxk Hkwfe ij ls foizkFkhZx.k izkFkhZ dks csn[ky ugha djs mlds ds'kj dks cUn ugha djkos rFkk foizkFkhZ la[;k 3 izkFkhZ dh mDr vkacfVr Hkwfe tgka ij ds'kj yxk gqvk gS ml Hkwfe ij yxs fo|qr dusD'ku dks foPNsn ugha djsA 'kiFk i= lkFk is'k gSA SBCWP No.1584/2019:- 12- fd oknh dh okn izLrqr ij fuEu vuqrks"k dh izkFkZuk gS fd %& d fd oknh ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh la[;k 2 o 3 ds fo:) bl vk'k; dh LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr dh tkos fd oknh ds uke ls Jheku ftyk dysDVj ckMesj }kjk vkacfVr ekStk n:Mk ds u;s [kljk ua 406@299 jdck 5 chek Hkwfe ij ls izfroknhx.k oknh dks csn[ky ugha djs mlds ds'kj dks cUn ugh djkus ¼[k½ fd izfroknh la[;k 3 ds fo:) fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd os oknh dh mDr vkacfVr Hkwfe tgka ij ds'kj yxk gqvk gS ml Hkwfe ij yxs fo|qr dusD'ku dks foPNsn ugh djsA^^ Thus, a bare look at the prayers reflects that the petitioners have not claimed any relief against the respondent No.2 and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to him if the suit is heard without impleading him as a party respondent in the suit. 19. 19. It is evident form the above discussion that the respondent No.2, even though, states that the land in question belongs to the State Government, however, wants to be impleaded as party to the suit below, merely because he had filed complaints against the petitioners and thus, would be in a position to demonstrate before the court below that the petitioners are encroachers upon the land in question, cannot be a ground to permit the respondent No.2 to be impleaded as a party in the suit below. The said provision of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is reproduced hereunder:- “10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.— (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the 1 [Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (XV of 1877)], section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.” 20. Thus, the aforesaid provision specifically mentions two contingencies; one is whether the applicant ought to have been jointed as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined, meaning thereby, that he is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the suit and the other is whether without his presence, the question in suit cannot be completely effectually adjudicated upon. Thus, this Court finds that the respondent No.2 is neither a necessary party, nor any relief has been claimed in the suit against him and nor his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the suit. 21. It is well settled principle of law that basically, it is for the plaintiff in a suit to identify the parties against whom, he has any grievance and to implead them as defendants in the suit filed for necessary relief, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom, he has no grievance. The petitioner/plaintiff being the Dominus Litis or the master of the suit, cannot be compelled to implead respondent No.2 as a party respondent in the suit against whom, he neither wishes to fight, nor is claiming any relief. 22. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 18.01.2019 (Annexure-7), passed by respondent No.1-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, is quashed and set aside and the writ petitions are allowed. 23. The stay application as well as all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.