Honble GARG, J.–All the aforesaid three revision petitions are being decided by this common judgment as in all of them common questions of law and facts are involved.

S.B. Civil Revision No. 805/99

(2). This revision has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 31.3.1999 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No. 84/84 by which he allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the respondent No. 2 was made party to that suit as defendant No. 2.

(3). Necessary facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:-

The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit being No. 84/84 for injunction against the respondent No. 1 Urban Improvement Trust (for short ``the Trust) alleging inter-alia that she was the owner of the dispute property and the defendant-respondent No. 1 had no right to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. After nearabout 15 years of filing of that suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the respondent No. 2 for being impleaded as party in that suit stating inter-alia that the disputed land was going to be allotted to the respondent No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document