The main legal point established is that parties with the same interest in the subject matter are necessary parties and can be joined in the same litigation.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. By way of this petition the petitioner-original defendant prays for the following reliefs:

"(A) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kingly be issued quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.01.2020, passed by the Court of the Ld. Addl. Civil Judge, Jambusar, below Exh. 160 in Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2001 at Annexure-'A' in the interest of justice.

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, kingly stay the implementation of the impugned order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Court of the Ld. Addl. Civil Judge, Jambusar, below Exh. 160 in Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2001 at Annexure-'A' in the interest of justice.

(C) Any other and/or further orders that may be deemed necessary in the interest of justice may kindly be passed."

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 herein filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 below Exh. 160 in Regular Civil Suit No. 77/2001, praying for to join them as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no. 2 namely Jayantibhai Motibhai Patel. The said application was opposed by the petitioner herein on the ground that the applicants are not the legal representatives of the deceased original plaintiff no. 2. However, the application came to be allowed by way of the impugned order dated 02.01.2020. Hence, this petition.

3. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas waives service of rule on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are the main contesting parties.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Amit N Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Pushpadatta Vyas for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Amit Patel for the petitioner has submitted that original plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 77 of 2001 against the present petitioner i.e. original defendant before the learned Civil Judge, Jambusar seeking permanent injunction for not selling/transferring/alienating the suit lands in any manner. He further submitted that the present petitioner had filed reply to the said suit. He also submitted that the petitioner has also filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 75/2001 against the respondent nos. 1 to 3 before the Learned Civil Judge, Jambusar for permanent injunction for not selling or transferring the suit lands, which is also pending.

6. Learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner has further submitted that the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 had filed application vide Exh. 160 under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC along with an application Exh. 154 for delay condonation. In the said application, it was contended that the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 were Hindu and were performing religious rituals regularly in Lalji Maharaj Mandir and hence, they are Hindu beneficiaries and are having same rights in the suit land as the deceased plaintiff no. 2 had. In the said application, the present respondent nos. 4 and 5 contended that they should be joined as legal representatives of deceased plaintiff no. 2 in the suit in question as plaintiff nos. 2/1 and 2/2. The present petitioner had filed reply against the said application wherein all the contentions of present respondent nos. 4 and 5 were denied and had raised strong objections against joining them as plaintiff nos. 2/1 and 2/2. However, the learned trial Court allowed the said application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC of present respondent nos. 4 and 5, permitting them to be joined as party respondent nos. 2/1 and 2/2 to the suit.

7. Learned advocate Mr. Patel further submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the documents and materials on record and the fact that the respondent no. 4 and 5 are not the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff no. 2. He further submitted that there is no cogent evidence to show that respondent nos. 4 and 5 are in anyway related to the deceased plaintiff no. 2. He has further urged that the impugned order passed under Order 2