ORDER : Rekha Borana, J. 1. At the very inception, it is relevant to note that although the present matter was listed in the cause list of 20.09.2024, on a permission been sought by learned counsel for the petitioners on 17.09.2024, the same was granted for the matter to be listed on 18.09.2024. This is for the reason that on 09.09.2024, the Court had directed the matter to be listed on 17.09.2024 but the same was not listed on the said date. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.08.2024 (Annexure-8) passed by the District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Suit No.147/2023 whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC as preferred by the petitioners applicants was rejected. 3. Before proceeding with the adjudication of the present petition, a brief of the facts is essential: i) In the year 1982, a suit was preferred by one Chand Mal for partition against legal representatives of Bhanwarlal. The said suit was decreed by way of a compromise vide judgment and decree dated 28.08.1989. ii) In the year 2003, Tara Devi, one of the legal representatives of Bhanwarlal i.e. his daughter, preferred a suit with the relief that the decree dated 28.08.1989 be set aside to the extent of her share as the compromise decree as obtained by the parties therein, was without her consent and she was not a signatory to the compromise. iii) The said suit as preferred by Tara Devi was subsequently converted into an application in terms of law and the said application was ultimately decided on 17.08.2023 while declaring the decree dated 28.08.1989 to be void to the extent of share of Tara Devi. However, qua the other reliefs, the plaint was returned to her with liberty to file a fresh suit. iv) In pursuance to the liberty as granted vide order dated 17.08.2023, Tara Devi preferred the present suit for partition of the complete property on 04.10.2023. However, qua the other reliefs, the plaint was returned to her with liberty to file a fresh suit. iv) In pursuance to the liberty as granted vide order dated 17.08.2023, Tara Devi preferred the present suit for partition of the complete property on 04.10.2023. v) However, the legal representatives of Chand Mal (Chand Mal having expired) were not impleaded in the present suit and hence, an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleadment was preferred on behalf of the legal representatives of Chand Mal with the specific submission that the earlier suit preferred by Chand Mal, husband of present petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 7 for partition qua the same property in question had already been decreed by way of compromise and hence, in the present suit for partition as preferred by plaintiff Tara Devi qua the same property, the petitioners applicants are definitely necessary parties. It was further submitted that vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.2023, judgment and decree dated 28.08.1989 was set aside/declared void only to the extent of share of Tara Devi and the other part of the decree was maintained. Meaning thereby, the decree in favour of Chand Mal was maintained. Evidently, the present suit had been preferred by Tara Devi for partition of the same property qua which the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1989 (compromise decree) had already been passed. vi) The learned Trial Court proceeded on to reject the application as preferred on behalf of the applicants with the finding that when once the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1989 had been declared void vide order dated 17.08.2023, the applicants could not be termed to be necessary parties in the present suit as the same was preferred qua plot No.41 only and not the complete property which was a subject matter of the earlier suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the finding as recorded by the learned Trial Court is erroneous on the face of it as the decree dated 28.08.1989 had not been declared to be null and void in toto but had been declared so, to the extent of share of Tara Devi only. Further, it is clear on record that the suit preferred by Chand Mal in the year 1982 for partition was qua plot No.41 only and the present suit is also qua the same property. 5. Further, it is clear on record that the suit preferred by Chand Mal in the year 1982 for partition was qua plot No.41 only and the present suit is also qua the same property. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that it is clear on record that the present plaintiff Tara Devi, in collusion with her siblings, preferred the present suit to somehow nullify the decree dated 28.08.1989 which ought not to be permitted and the applicants petitioners deserve to be impleaded in the present suit proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present writ petition itself has rendered infructuous as subsequent to the passing of the order impugned dated 03.08.2024, the suit proceedings were referred for settlement to the ADR Centre on 06.09.2024 and the parties have successfully entered into a compromise on 09.09.2024 before the Mediator. The report of successful mediation was forwarded by the Mediator on 09.09.2024 to the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the suit itself having been decided by way of compromise, the present petition has rendered infructuous. 7. On merits, counsel submits that the suit in question for partition has been preferred by Tara Devi against the legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal, only to the extent of the property of the ownership of Bhanwar Lal, her father. Therefore, the suit in question not being related to the property qua which the decree dated 28.08.1989 was passed, the applicants could not be termed to be necessary parties and their application for impleadment has rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 8. Heard the counsels and perused the material available on record. 9. For a proper adjudication of the dispute in question, reference to the pleadings as made by Chand Mal in Civil Suit No.36/1982 qua which the decree dated 28.08.1989 was passed, is relevant. The description of the property as mentioned in Suit No.36/1982 in para Nos.1 & 2 of the plaint was as under: 10. In para No.1 of the plaint in the earlier Suit No.175/2003 (Application No.65/2012) as preferred by the present plaintiff Tara Devi, it was pleaded as under: In para No.3 of the said plaint, it was further pleaded as under: In the said suit, it was prayed by Tara Devi as under: 11. In para No.1 of the plaint in the earlier Suit No.175/2003 (Application No.65/2012) as preferred by the present plaintiff Tara Devi, it was pleaded as under: In para No.3 of the said plaint, it was further pleaded as under: In the said suit, it was prayed by Tara Devi as under: 11. It is relevant to note that the suit as preferred by Tara Devi was subsequently converted into an application and was registered at No.65/2012. The said application No.65/2012 as preferred by Tara Devi was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2023 in following terms: 12. Admittedly, in pursuance to the liberty granted to Tara Devi vide order dated 17.08.2023, the present suit for partition and permanent injunction has been preferred. A description of the property in question as made in para No.1 of the plaint in the present suit is as under: 13. A bare perusal of the pleadings as referred to in the preceding paras makes it crystal clear that the present suit as preferred by plaintiff Tara Devi pertains to the same property qua which the first suit for partition was preferred by Chand Mal and was decreed vide compromise decree dated 28.08.1989. 14. It is further clear on record that the decree dated 28.08.1989 was set aside/declared void vide order dated 17.08.2023 only to the extent of share of Tara Devi and nothing more. It is further crystal clear that it is in pursuance to the liberty granted by the Court vide order dated 17.08.2023 that the present suit for partition of the same property has been preferred. 15. Interestingly, Tara Devi, in the earlier suit, impleaded Chand Mal with a specific averment that he is an essential party to the suit. Further, it was the specific pleading of Tara Devi in the said suit that the property is ancestral; and Chand Mal and the other defendants i.e. the legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal are in possession of the property in question being the co-parceners. Meaning thereby, Tara Devi, who had specifically admitted Chand Mal to be the rightful co-sharer of the property in question, chose not to implead his legal representatives in the present suit for partition as preferred by her qua the same property. Meaning thereby, Tara Devi, who had specifically admitted Chand Mal to be the rightful co-sharer of the property in question, chose not to implead his legal representatives in the present suit for partition as preferred by her qua the same property. A natural conclusion which can be derived from the above facts is that the present suit is nothing more than an attempt by Tara Devi, in collusion with her siblings, to nullify the effect of the decree dated 28.08.1989. Be that as it may. 16. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the overall facts is that the present petitioners, being the legal representatives of Chand Mal, are definitely the essential and necessary parties to the present suit which unquestionably pertains to the same property qua which the decree dated 28.08.1989 was passed. No decree, whatsoever, can be passed in the present suit without impleading the present petitioners. Any so-called compromise, even attempted to have been made qua the same property, between the legal representatives of Bhanwar Lal, cannot curtail the rights of the present petitioners. 17. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the clear opinion that the application as preferred by the applicants for impleadment in the present suit has wrongly been rejected by the learned Trial Court on the premise that the decree dated 28.08.1989 had been set aside in toto. 18. The present writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 03.08.2024 therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC as preferred on behalf of the petitioners is hereby allowed and they are permitted to be impleaded as party respondents in the suit (147/2023) in question. 19. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the suit itself stands decided by way of compromise is concerned, as is evident on record, the report of the mediation proceedings dated 09.09.2024 had been referred to the Court and the matter was posted for 18.09.2024. Meaning thereby, no decree, whatsoever, has been passed by the Court till the said date and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the suit stands decided/decreed/disposed. 20. Meaning thereby, no decree, whatsoever, has been passed by the Court till the said date and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the suit stands decided/decreed/disposed. 20. As vide the present order, the petitioners applicants have been permitted to be impleaded in the suit as party defendants, the suit in question can therefore not be decided on basis of a compromise entered into between the respondents. The learned Trial Court shall therefore be restrained from passing any decree on basis of the compromise as entered into between the existing plaintiff and the defendants. The learned Trial Court shall now proceed on with the suit proceedings after impleading the present petitioners as party defendants to the suit in question. 21. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.