Point of law:
None of the petitioner's rights are likely to be affected. It is a settled principles that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his case the petitioner cannot thrust himself in the case.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31.07.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge No. 2 (North), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby the petitioner's application dated 06.08.2016, filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are that the respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Udaipur inter alia seeking injunction that they be restrained from interfering with the petitioner's possession.

3. The facts before the trial Court were that the plaintiffs were apprehending demolition exercise over the construction, they had raised over the public land. During pendency of the suit aforesaid, the petitioner filed an application seeking his impleadment, inter alia contending that the plaintiffs' construction is just in front of his house and as a result of illegal encroachment raised by the plaintiffs, the width of the road has been reduced to 50 feet, which results in accident in front of his house and thus, he was a necessary party.

4. The trial Court rejected petitioner's impleadment application inter alia observing that none of the petitioner's rights are under threat and his presence is not required for effectual disposal of the issues before the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial Court reiterated the submissions, which were made on behalf of the petitioner-applicant before the trial Court.

6. In considered opinion of this Court, none of the petitioner's rights are likely to be affected. It is a settled principles that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his case the petitioner cannot thrust himself in the case. His presence rather indulgence is unwarranted in the suit of injunction filed by the respondents No. 1 & 2.

7. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order impugned dated 31.07.2019, passed by the trial Court.

The writ petition is thus, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.