DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 05.01.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Junction, Pali (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) vide which the petitioner’s application dated 25.10.2018 filed under Order I Rule X read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’) has been rejected.

2. Succinctly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that plaintiff-Pawan (respondent No. 1 herein) instituted a suit for injunction and cancellation of election of Acharya Shri Bhikshu Samadhi Sthal Sansthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’) held on 24.04.2018. While filing the suit the plaintiff had impleaded the ‘Acharya Shri Bhikshu Samadhi Sthal Sansthan’ as defendant No. 1; Surendra Kumar Surana, the earlier President as defendant No. 2, Loonkaran Chhajer and Hansraj Betala the Election Officers as defendants No. 3 and 4 respectively and Khayali Lal Tater (present petitioner); the newly elected President in the contentious election, as defendant No. 5.

3. To complete the narration of facts, it may be noticed that Nirmal Sri Srimal, who has been elected as Secretary was also impleaded as a party by the trial Court (respondent No. 7 in the present writ petition). The petitioner, being defendant No. 5 who had been elected President of the society filed the above referred application dated 25.10.2018, and contended that the plaintiff has impleaded Surendra Kumar Surana as a defendant though no relief against him has been claimed. It was also alleged that the plaintiff filed the present suit in collusion with defendant No. 2, the erstwhile President so as to serve the cause of the plaintiff. While asserting that the suit in question suffered from misjoinder of parties, the petitioner in her application prayed that defendant No. 2-Surendra Kumar Surana, be removed from array of defendants.

4. The learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and hearing the rival contentions dismissed the petitioner’s application, vide its order dated 05.01.2019 impugned in the present writ petition, inter-alia observing that the plaintiff is ‘dominus litis’ of his case. It was also held that the allegations of collusion and malafide levelled by the applicant/petitioner are required to be proved, which can be proved only after completion of evidence. The trial Court has further observed that the defendant No. 2- Surendra Kumar Surana may not be a necessary party, but he appears to be a proper party as he was holding the Office of President, immediately prior to the subject election.

5. Impugning the aforesaid order dated 05.01.2019, Mr. Aklovya Bhansali, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial Court has erred in rejecting petitioner’s application seeking deletion of said Surendra Kumar Surana, the defendant No. 2. He argued that provisions of Order I Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure are very clear and only those persons can be impleaded as party defendants against whom any relief has been claimed. He further submitted that a perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No. 2 clearly suggests that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 are having collusion, as the defendant No. 2 has filed written statement admitting the contents of the plaintiff’s plaint. Learned counsel further contended that neither any relief has been sought nor any allegation have been levelled against defendant No. 2, hence, he is an unnecessary party to the suit. It was also argued that the plaintiff is essentially serving the cause of the defendant No. 2, who had since resigned.

6. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3- Surendra Kumar Surana, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner, who is a defendant in the proceedings, cannot maintain an application seeking deletion of co-defendant, namely Surendra Kumar Surana. He submitted that the petitioner’s application u