1. The core issue which arises for consideration in the instant petition is whether persons, who have purchased the suit property in defiance of an injunction order passed by the Court, are entitled tobe imleaded as parties in the pending suit.

2. Undisputed facts that emerge are that the plaintiffpetitioner has filed a suit under Section 88 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in the court of Assistant Collector, Dholpur against respondent No.4 (original defendant No.1), now represented through legal representatives i.e. respondents No. 4/1/ to 4/3. Alongwith the suit, an application under Section 217 for the relief of temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court restrained the original defendant No.1 from alienating the suit property on 19/11/2002. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 to 3 moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as parties to the suit and such application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Dholpur on 06/06/2005 observing that the suit property was purchased in disobedience of the injunction order of the Court dt.19/11/2002 and such persons have no right to be impleaded in the suit. Such order was assailed before the Board of Revenue in a Revision Petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and the Board of Revenue, placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & ors.: (1999) DNJ (SC) 178, allowed the revision petition and quashed & set aside the order dt. 06/06/2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dholpur and impleaded the respondents No. 1 to 3 as defendants in the case.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Board of Revenue, impleading respondents No.1 to 3 as parties, who were alleged to have purchased the suit property in defiance of the injunction order of the trial court, is bad in law. He vehemently contended that the persons, purchasing the suit property involved in a pending litigation even after restraining order of the Court, have no vested right or equity in their favour so as to claim their impleadment as parties in the suit. In support thereof, he relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Surjit and others Vs. Harbans Singh and others: AIR 1996 (SC) 135 and so also the judgments rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of Smt. Kamla Vs. Somnath Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited & others, SB Civil Writ petition No.6218/2011, decided on 14/12/2011 and Kishan Sharma & Anr. Vs. Gram Panchayat, Niwaru & ors, SB Civil Writ Petition No.11308/2009, decided on 05/01/2012.

4. Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondents, supporting the impugned order of the Board of Revenue, contended that the respondents were necessary and proper parties and the Board of Revenue, by rightly applying the ratio laid down in the case of Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & ors. (supra), committed no error in setting aside trial court's order in impleading them as defendants in the suit and in support thereof, relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr.: 2005(3) Supreme 670 and A.Nawab John & ors. Vs. V.N. Subramaniyam: 2012 DNJ (SC) 720.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record.

6. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to delete or add parties to a suit at any stage of the proceedings, read as under:-

“10 (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 C