Kadar Patel vs Mohammed Arif
2026 Latest Caselaw 719 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Kadar Patel vs Mohammed Arif on 22 January, 2026

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2098




                                                              1                                  MP-87-2026
                             IN        THE   HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
                                                ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2026
                                                 MISC. PETITION No. 87 of 2026
                                                KADAR PATEL AND OTHERS
                                                        Versus
                                               MOHAMMED ARIF AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                                  Mr. Sunil Jain - Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Nandini Sharma -
                          Advocate for petitioners.
                                  Mr. Gajendra Singh Dodia - Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.29
                          / State.

                                                                  ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the impugned order dated 02/12/2025 (Annex.-P/1) passed in RCSA/822/2018 by XXII District Judge, Indore (M.P.), whereby application preferred under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'CPC') has been dismissed and prayer for

impleading the petitioners as defendants in the suit has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the civil suit i.e. RCSA/822/2018 has been filed by the plaintiffs / respondents No.1 and 2 for specific performance of contract. He submits that the suit land bearing Survey No.507 area 3.015 hectare is situated in Village Mundla Nayata, District Indore over which plaintiffs and their ancestors are in possession

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2098

2 MP-87-2026 since 1965 and they have filed revenue entries from the year 1982-83 to 2006-07 to prove their possession.

3. Learned counsel further submits that another suit has been filed by respondents No.12 and 13 herein seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, which was registered as RCS/155A/2013 and father of the petitioners has also filed another suit bearing number RCS/54A/2016 against the defendants including several present respondents in respect of the same land for declaration and permanent injunction. He submits that petitioners are party in the aforesaid suits, therefore, it was necessary to be impleaded them as defendants in the suit bearing number RCSA/822/2018 so that they may protect their rights in the suit property, but learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed their application preferred under Order I Rule 10

of CPC by the impugned order dated 02/12/2025, which is bad in law.

4. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Sumtibai and Others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Reg. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) Through Mankanwar (Smt.) W/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead) and Others reported i n (2007) 10 SCC 82 . On these submissions, learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the petition with a prayer that they be directed to implead as defendants in the suit RCSA/822/2018.

5. Heard and considered the submissions raised at bar.

6. It is not in dispute that the agreement to sell, which is basis of civil suit RCSA/822/2018, petitioners are not party. No relief has been claimed against the petitioners in that suit. Petitioners through their father

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2098

3 MP-87-2026 have filed another civil suit claiming possession and title over the disputed land.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, even abiding by the judgment cited in the case of Sumtibai (Supra) , this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in dismissing the application for impleading the petitioners as defendants.

8. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of substance, fails and is hereby dismissed.

(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE

Tej