1. - This intra-court appeal has been preferred to challenge the judgment dated 6-8-2009 passed by the single Bench of this Court by which the appellant writ petition No. 4300/2005 has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed the suit for declaration and injunction under Sections 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955 for short) against their father appellant (defendant) on the ground that the land in question is ancestral land. According to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after the death of their grand-father Mohan Lal, the property devolved upon the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and upon the appellant (father of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4), therefore, they may be declared Khatedar tenant of the land in question. They also sought the relief of injunction against their own father the appellant that the appellant may not interfere in the peaceful possession of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 over the land in question. In the suit before the Asstt. Collector, the present appellant filed a written statement and raised objection that his sister Kamla being the daughter of deceased Mohan Lal the ancestor of the parties to the suit was a necessary party. The issue on this objection was also framed by the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 vide judgment and decree dated 2nd Sept., 1996 wherein one of the issue was that the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 3 and 4) have not impleaded Kamla the daughter of the ancestor of the parties. The trial Court decided the issue No. 1 against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 (plaintiffs) which was about plaintiff right in the property after the death of their grand-father and also decided the issue of injunction against the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The plaintiffs-respondents challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali, who allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and order to implead Kamla as party in the suit and remanded the matter for re-trial by judgment and decree dated 20-10-2000.

3. The appellant (defendant) being aggrieved against the order of remand passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Pali dated 20-10-2000 preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 24-6-2005. The Board of Revenue specifically held that trial Court even did not comply with the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code in writing the judgment and therefore also, the remand of the suit to the trial Court by the first appellate Court was just and legal.

4. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority dated 20-10-2000 and upheld by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 26-4-2005, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition being SBCWP No. 4300/2005, which has been dismissed by the single Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 7-8-2000, hence, this intra Court appeal.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner firstly the plantiffs-respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not choose to implead the necessary party and that was so even after specific objection raised by the appellant-defendant before the trial Court and, therefore, the trial court rightly decided the issue against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 the plaintiffs. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 even did not challenge that finding before the first appellate Court, which is apparent from the memo of appeal, yet the first appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and directed to implead Kamla as party in the original suit and remanded the matter to the trial Court. According to learned counsel for the appellant even otherwise the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 suit was rightly dismissed by the trial Court because in the lifetime of the father of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the respon