JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:

"(i) quash the impugned order dated 01.06.2018 (Annex. 6) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Suit No. 6/2018; and

(ii) the impleadment application filed by the petitioners under Orde 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC may be allowed with costs in toto; and

(iii) Any other writ or direction that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner."

3. The brief facts of the case as noticed by this Court are that the respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for permanent injunction alongwith the temporary injunction application against the respondent No. 2 before the learned trial Court regarding his particular plots situated at Raati Talai, Banswara.

4. The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioner, who is the neighbour of respondent no. 1 and whose easementary rights are being affected, has filed an application for being impleaded as party, but his application has been dismissed by the learned trial court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to para 2 of the plaint, which is Annex. 1 of the writ petition, in which, it is stated that on 08.09.2017 & 14.09.2017, a notice has been said to be issued, but actually no notices were received. Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter drawn attention of this Court to the said notices, which are also part of the pleading.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the photographs, which are on record, show that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are immediate neighbour and serious prejudice to the easementary right is being caused by the respondent no. 1, and therefore, the petitioners have right to contest the matter before the learned trial court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter has taken this Court to the complaint made by the petitioners against the respondent no. 1 on 08.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown the notices issued on 08.09.2017 & 14.09.2017.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners thereafter has taken this Court to the proceedings dated 15.02.2018 conducted by District Collector, Banswara whereby there is a noting upon the complaint of the petitioners that any construction beyond permissible limits shall not be permitted, and in case, any illegal construction is made, the same shall be demolished.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the respondent No. 1, in the garb of present suit, wants to vitiate the complaint made by the petitioners and in the interest of justice, they may be permitted to become a party to the proceedings below so that they can contest their rights.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment rendered by this Court in Naresh Taldar v. Kalimuddin Bohra & Anr. (SBCWP No. 6931/2018) decided on 16.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which reads as follows:-

"6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusing record as well as precedent law cited by the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner had made a complaint against the respondent no. 1 that he is encroaching upon the public way and the petitioner being resident of the same area, was directly affected and his right of way was allegedly being infringed by the respondent no. 1. The learned court below failed to appreciate that instituting a separate proceeding would unnecessarily create burden upon the system and once adjudication is happening, it should be comprehensive in nature and by merely by impleading the applicant-petitioner no injustice is going to be caused to the respondent