Jagat Narayan, J.
1. This is a revision application by Fateh Raj and Vijai Raj against an order of Munsif, City Jodhpur, refusing to implead them as defendants in a suit brought by Suraj Roop respondent against the Municipal Council Jodhpur, for a declaration that he is the owner of a Chabutri described in the plaint under Order 1, Rule 10 (2), Civil P. C. on the ground that they do not claim any interest in the property in suit.
2. The houses of Vijairaj and Fatehraj on the one hand and of Suraj Roop on the other abut one another at right angles, There is a Chabutri situated at the place where the two houses meet. This Chabutri was constructed by the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a very old Chabutri. Vijairaj filed a complaint before the Administrator, Municipal Council on 29th December 1961 alleging that the Chabutri was a new encroachment made by the Suraj Roop. After hearing the parties the Municipal Commissioner held that part of the Chabutri was new and was an encroachment and ordered its demolition on 1-10-63. That order was subsequently set aside by the Revenue Appellate Authority. Vijay Raj filed a writ petition in this Court on which the order of the Revenue Appellate Authority was set aside and the order of the Municipal Commissioner was restored. It was held that the Chabutri would be demolished unless Suraj Roop took steps to have the order of the Municipal Commissioner set aside. The present suit was then instituted by Suraj Roop against the Municipal Council, Jodhpur.
3. The case of Fateh Raj and Vijai Raj is that the Chabutri is constructed on Khalsa land and is an encroachment. They have further alleged that they opened a door and window in their house and they have a right of ingress and egress through the door on the chauk outside the house and they have also a right of light and air through the window. It has not been stated how long the door and window have been in existence. Nor have they specified the ground on which they claim a right of ingress and egress through the door and a right to receive light and air through the window.
No one can open doors and windows on Khalsa land as of right. Khalsa land means the land belonging to the State. The State has the same rights over its land as any private owner. The applicants have thus failed to show that they have any legal interest in the subject-matter of the suit. In other words, they have not shown that if the plaintiff of the suit is granted the relief claimed by him the legal rights of the applicants will be directly affected. It appears that the applicants want to be impleaded in the suit merely with the object of enabling them to see that it is properly defended. As was held in Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd., 1956-1 All ER 273 the applicants cannot be impleaded as defendants for such a purpose.
4. In the above decision a note in the Annual Practice, 1955 at page 232 is reproduced which runs as follows:--
'Generally speaking intervention can only be insisted upon in three classes of cases, namely (A) In a representative action where the intervener is one of a class whom plaintiff claims to represent. The intervener may say, 'I deny that plaintiff represents me--add me as a defendant ......' (B) Where the proprietary rights of the intervener are directly affected by the proceedings...... (C) In actions claiming the specific performance of contracts where third persons have an interest in the question of the manner in which the contract should be performed.'
5. (A) and (C) can have no application to the present case. The applicants have not succeeded in proving that they fall under (B).
6. The learned Judge observed in the above case-
'I do not, with deference to those who have thought otherwise, agree that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions, though it may incidentally have that effect. The Court has other ways of doing that which are amply sufficient for the purpose -- by ordering consolidation....
................ The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action, and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party.'
7. I accordingly dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it.