1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 28.01.2025 seeking impleadment of petitioner as a
necessary party in civil suit before Civil Judge, Didwana vide no.
Saheb Trust Jharod Smriti Trust v/s State Bank of India & Ors. The
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated
28.01.2025 (Annex-3) may be quashed and set aside by
allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as
CPC) by the petitioner may be allowed.
[2025:RJ-JD:13986] (2 of 5) [CW-5287/2025]
Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in
favour of the petitioner."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent no.1
preferred a civil suit before Civil Judge, Didwana vide no. 77/2017
(New 35/2022) for seeking permanent injunction against the
different properties of one late Shri Ajmeri Khan who is father of
the present petitioner which includes movable and immovable
properties as well as amount pending in the bank accounts on
various grounds.
3. That when the petitioner came to know about the facts of
civil suit for permanent injunction against the properties of
petitioner's father, The petitioner moved an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') for her
impleadment as a party to the suit proceedings along with certain
documents such as birth certificate, electricity bill and Khatoni of
Khasra no. 83 & 84 of village Jhalod.
4. The learned Trial Court rejected the application of the
petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2025 on the ground that the
petitioner/ applicant failed to establish the necessity of being a
party.
5. Thus, in these circumstances the petitioner being aggrieved
of order dated 28.01.2025 (Annex.-3) has preferred this writ
petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the
birth certificate it is evident that she's daughter of Ajmeri Khan
and the properties against which the permanent injunction is
sought is already in(Downloaded
the name of present
on 21/03/2025 at 11:40:46petitioner
PM) being legally
[2025:RJ-JD:13986] (3 of 5) [CW-5287/2025]
entitled & thus the order passed by learned Trial Court deserves to
be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 1
Rule 10 of C.P.C. by the petitioner may be allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that in event of
passing any injunction by learned Trial Court against the
properties mentioned in the suit that will have adverse effect upon
the rights of the petitioner being legally not only owner as well as
title holder in the revenue record.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused material
available on the record.
9. Learned Trial Court has observed that Roshan Malwan cannot
be considered as the legal successor of Ajmeri Khan for the reason
that no document has been placed on record which proves her as
legal successor and that there is merely a statement that she has
availed remedy for grant of succession certificate under Section
272 of Succession Act, 1925. Furthermore, applicant has nowhere
stated as to how Roshan Malwan is a necessary party to the suit
as the plaintiff in civil suit before learned Civil Judge has not
sought any relief against Roshan Malwan. Moreover, it is a
well-established principle of law that the plaintiff is the owner/
master of his case & cannot be forced to fight a case against a
stranger. It is the plaintiff's right to decide against whom he wants
to bring a claim.
10. This court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightfully
considered that the application before learned Trial Court in civil
suit no.77/2017 (New no. 35/2022) is for seeking permanent in-
junction and no rights for title are being declared in the said civil
suit and that plaintiff (Hazi Mamdu Khan) in the said civil suit
[2025:RJ-JD:13986] (4 of 5) [CW-5287/2025]
before Civil Judge has not sought any relief against the present
petitioner-Roshan Malwan.
11. Moreover, this Court finds that judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran
Kant Robinson reported in AIR 2019 SC 3577, wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in order to determine
whether a party is necessary party or not, the twin tests, include,
firstly, there has to be a right to some relief against such party
with respect to the controversy involved in the proceedings and
secondly, no effective decree can be passed in the absence of
such party. The relevant part of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurmit (supra) is reproduced
as under:
"5.2 An identical question came to be considered before
this Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal,
(2005) 6 SCC 733 and applying the principle that the
plaintiff is the dominus litis, in the similar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court observed and held
that the question of jurisdiction of the court to invoke
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to add a party who is not made a
party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a
party proposed to be added has direct and legal
interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It is
further observed and held by this Court that twin tests
are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a
necessary party. The tests are - (1) there must be a
right to some relief against such party in respect of the
controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no
effective decree can be passed in the absence of such
party."
12. Therefore, applying the twin test to the present case, this
Court finds that firstly, there is no right to relief sought against
the present petitioner and secondly, the petitioner has failed to
show that effective decree cannot be passed in her absence.
13. It is further observed and held that if the present petitioner
is impleaded in the suit, the scope of the suit for permanent
[2025:RJ-JD:13986] (5 of 5) [CW-5287/2025]
injunction will be enlarged to a suit for title and possession, which
is improper.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the
learned Trial Court was quite justified in rejecting the application
under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. in not accepting the impleadment
of present petitioner in a suit where the subject matter was not
declaration of title rather it was for permanent injunction.
15. Therefore, in light of above facts and precedent cited, the
impugned order does not suffers from any infirmity whatsoever,
warranting any interference therein.
16. The writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well
as all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
38/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
