DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have laid challenge to the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Sachore, District Jalore whereby petitioners' application, seeking impleadment has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Municipal Board, Sachore had filed a suit against one Faglu Ram, seeking cancellation of the registered patta issued in his favour, interalia contending that the said patta has been wrongly issued to him.

3. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners submitted an application dated 30.09.2016, seeking their impleadment in the suit proceedings. While submitting the application, the petitioners-applicants indicated that the subject land is in their possession and their residential house is constructed thereupon.

4. The learned trial Court has however rejected petitioners' said application interalia observing as under:—

ewy okn oknh lqjs'kdqekj vf/k'kklh vf/kdkjh&uxjikfydk eaM+y- lkpkSj us iês dks fujLr djus dh ?kks"k.kk ckcr~ izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlesa vk/kkj dwV jpuk dk crk;k x;k gSA ewy okn ?kks"k.kk ls lacf/kr gSA bl ekeys esa izkFkhZx.k dks dksbZ Li"V laca/k utj ugha vkrk gSA izkFkhZx.k dk fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fof/kd vf/kdkj gS rks os vyx ls okn izLrqr djus ds fy, Lor= gSA bl ekeys esa ;fn mUgsa i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k tkrk gS rks ewy okn ds izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djus esa dbZ tfVyrk,s mRiUu gksxhA oSLks Hkh izfroknh la[;k 01 ds dfFkr d`R; ds lac/ka esa mudk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ;k izfroknh ds :i esa vkSj la;ksftr gksus dh vko';drk ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhx.k thokjke oxSjg dk izkFkZuk i= dksbZ vkSfpR;drk ugha j[krk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k thokjke oxSjg dk izkFkZuk i= dksbZ vkSfpR;drk ugha j[krk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k thokjke oxSjg dk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 O;-iz-lafgrk [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

vr% izkFkhZx.k thokjke oxSjg dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 01 fu;e 10 O;-iz- lfgrk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

vkns'k [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA

5. Mr. Teja Ram Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the order impugned passed by the Court below invited attention of this Court towards petitioners' application for grant of patta which is said to be pending since 2012.

6. He further submitted that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the land in question and their residential house has been constructed thereupon.

7. In light of these facts, petitioners' counsel contended that the petitioners are necessary party as they are having possession and rights over the subject property. With a view to support his case, Mr. Choudhary argued that if for the fault of Municipal Council, their suit is rejected, petitioners' right having possession over the land would be prejudicially effected.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

9. It may be true that the petitioners are having possession over the said land for which, the contentious patta had been issued.

10. This Court is of the considered opinion that while deciding the question as to whether the applicants are necessary party or not; the relevant factor to be reckoned is, as to whether the applicants' right would be prejudiced, if the suit is allowed and not, if the suit is dismissed.

11. The other relevant factor to be considered is as to whether the applicant has an interest or concern about the subject matter and not the subject. The subject matter of the present suit is cancellation of ‘registered patta’ issued in favour of Faglu Ram, for which the petitioners claiming possession in an alien and he cannot claim to have any concern about this lis. It may be true that the subject of the dispute namely the plot in question is the same.

12. Learned Court below has committed no error of law in rejecting the petitioners' application. Needless to observe that it is always open to the petitioners to lay independent challenge to the patta granted in favour of Faglu Ram-the defendant, but they cannot be perm