MOTI LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved against the order dated 20th June, 2008 by which the trial court impleaded the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as party while allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the newly added respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) IN the trial court application was submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stating therein that because of the act of the plaintiff, their properties likely to be damaged or may be put in condition for which there will not be possibility of any repairing of the wall. Be it as it may be, the trial court observed that for determination of the question involved and effective decision of the suit, presence of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is necessary.