[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kumari Rekha vs Veni Ram (2026:Rj-Jd:6741) on 4 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (1 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
[2026:RJ-JD:6741]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5506/2024
1. Kumari Rekha D/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
Through Guardian Mother Smt. Jasoda W/o Jamna Lal,
Now Major, Aged 28 Year. R/o Village Sukher, Tehsil
Girwa, District Udaipur.
2. Smt. Jasoda W/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Village
Sukher, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Veni Ram S/o Devaji Dangi, Village Sukher, Tehsil Girwa,
District Udaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, To Be Served Through Tehsildar
Girwa, District Udaipur.
3. Urban Development Trust Udaipur, Through Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Purohit
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
04/02/2026
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated
27.12.2023 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby revision
petition preferred on behalf of petitioner-applicants, challenging
order dated 30.04.2012, was rejected.
2. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 - plaintiff filed a suit
against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking declaration of khatedari
rights, correction of revenue entries, and permanent injunction in
respect of land bearing old Khasra No. 547, ad-measuring 11.3
bighas, and old Khasra No. 559, ad-measuring 11.8 bighas,
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (2 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
situated in village Sukher, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur ("land in
question") on the basis of exclusive possession over the land in
question.
2.1 It is further stated that earlier, father of respondent No. 1
was in possession of the land in question and thereafter,
respondent no. 1 remained in possession, therefore Tehsildar,
Girwa issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land
Revenue Act against plaintiff - respondent no. 1 which gave rise to
cause of action for filing of suit by respondent no. 1.
2.2 During pendency of said suit, present petitioners, being the
daughter and wife of Jamna Lal, who was son of late Deva Ji,
preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, stating
therein that, petitioners, being legal representatives of late Deva
Ji, also have rights in the joint Hindu family property and,
therefore, outcome of the suit would affect their rights as well. On
these grounds, a prayer for their impleadment was made.
2.3 Application preferred on behalf of petitioners was objected to
by respondent No. 1 on the ground that after the death of Deva Ji,
respondent No.1, Veni Ram alone remained in possession of the
land in question and, therefore, notices under Section 91 of the
Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were issued in his name alone. It was
further contended that suit in question has been filed on the basis
of long possession against respondent nos. 2 & 3 therein and that
no relief as such has been sought against petitioner-applicants.
2.4 Learned SDO, Girwa, while passing order dated 30.04.2012,
has rejected application filed by petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10
CPC.
2.5 Challenging the said order, a revision petition was preferred
before Board of Revenue and same has also been dismissed vide
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (3 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
order dated 27.12.2023, wherein learned Board of Revenue has
held that issues raised in the suit could be decided inter se the
existing parties and plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a
party against whom no relief has been claimed.
2.6. Challenging the said order dated 27.12.2023, present writ
petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned
Revisional Court failed to take into account that after the death of
Deva Ji, all rights vested in his two sons i.e. Veni Ram and Jamna
Lal and applicants - being legal representatives of late Jamna Lal,
are necessary parties to the present suit. Learned counsel stated
that law with regard to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has not been
considered by learned Revisional Court in judicious manner, hence
order impugned is not tenable in the eyes of law.
3.1 Learned counsel further argued that rejection of petitioners'
application would lead to multiplicity of proceedings; however,
even this aspect has not been taken into consideration by learned
Revisional Court.
4. Countering the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for
respondent no. 1, Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, argued that order passed
by Revisional Court is wholly justified and the same has been
passed in consonance with the position of law settled in that
regard. It is submitted that plaintiff is dominus litis (master of the
suit) and a party cannot be impleaded against plaintiff's wishes. It
is also contended that no relief as such has been sought against
the petitioners and their independent rights (if any) cannot be
adjudicated upon in the present suit.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (4 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
6. While considering merits of the case, this Court finds that
plaintiff has prayed for relief of declaration and permanent
injunction on the basis of his long-standing possession. The issues
involved can very well be adjudicated inter-se the existing parties
and, as such, there is no requirement to implead present
petitioners for adjudication of the suit in question.
7. The sole ground for impleadment as raised in application
filed under order 1 rule 10 CPC, so also in present writ petition is
that petitioners, being family members of late Jamna Lal, have
rights in the joint Hindu family property. This Court is of the
opinion that any competing claim or independent rights of persons
not already party to the suit cannot be permitted to be raised in
the suit filed by plaintiff-respondent and the same requires
separate adjudication. Petitioners cannot be allowed to be
impleaded merely on the basis of any such competing claims that
they may have in the land in question unless it is established that
their presence is necessary for proper and complete adjudication
of the suit proceedings.
8. Law with regard to plaintiff being dominus litis is well settled:
plaintiff is the master of the suit and the suit rests upon the
plaintiff's autonomy to decide the nature of the cause of action,
the reliefs to be claimed, and the persons against whom such
reliefs are sought. The plaintiff cannot, as a matter of course, be
compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any
relief and with whom he does not intend to contest.
9. In Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others reported in
(2020) 14 SCC 392, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: -
"15. It is a settled principle of law, which does not
need any authority toon support
(Uploaded 12/02/2026 at the principle,
11:13:20 AM) that the
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (5 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add
any person as party to his suit unless it is held
keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed
therein that a person sought to be added as party is a
necessary party and without his presence neither the
suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It
is only then such person can be allowed to become
party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non-
impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not
appear to be a case here.
16. We do not find that the presence of respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 in the facts of this case is required for
deciding the legality of notice impugned in the suit on
merits because the dispute centers around the
question of legality and validity of the notice which,
as mentioned above, arises between respondent No.
1, who has issued the notice, and the person to whom
it is given, i.e., appellant."
10. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sudhamayee Pattnaik
v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo reported in (2022) 17 SCC 286, has
held as follows: -
"9...As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are
the dominus litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to
join any other person not party to the suit for effective
decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1
Rule 10CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded
as the defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not
impleading any other person as the defendants against
the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the
plaintiffs."
11. In view of thus settled position of law regarding impleadment
of parties and the specific facts of this case, this Court finds that
the suit so preferred by respondent no. 1 - plaintiff can be fully
adjudicated between existing parties. As the plaintiff seeks no
relief against petitioners, their presence is not necessary for final
determination of the matter. Furthermore, petitioners seek to
assert independent rights in the land in question, allegedly being
members of joint Hindu family, which are outside the scope of suit
filed by the plaintiffs on the ground of long possession. Given the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (6 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
plaintiff's express objection to the application - and mindful that
the plaintiff is the dominus litis - learned courts below have rightly
rejected the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC.
12. This Court thus finds that petitioners have failed to establish
any perversity or manifest illegality or error apparent on the face
of record or any jurisdictional error being committed by learned
Revisional Court in passing the order impugned.
13. It is pertinent to observe that the scope of interference by
this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction is very limited. The
contours of Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been
delineated ad-nauseum and reference may be made in that
respect to some salutary pronouncements such as Shalini Shyam
Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329; Jai
Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385;
and Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 -
instead of burdening this judgment with copious quotes therefrom.
It has been broadly held therein that the interlocutory orders of
the courts below should not be interfered with under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, unless such orders are palpably vitiated
by capriciousness, perversity, error of jurisdiction or such like
root-causes leading to manifest injustice. Amendment to Section
115 CPC, effective from 1.7.2002, introduced vide the Code of
Civil Procedure (Amended) Act, 1999, was intended to be a
prescription to overcome delays in trials of civil suits, where
delays are notorious and adversely commented on publically. The
salutary provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India
cannot be allowed to be casually invoked to circumvent legislative
intent clear from the CPC amendment effective 1.7.2002. No
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6741] (7 of 7) [CW-5506/2024]
doubt the court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is ever
present but its exercise has to be guarded and confined to
situations referred to above. None of the aforesaid situations
obtain in the instant case.
14. In light of the discussion above, this Court finds that learned
Board of Revenue has rightly dimissed the revision petition
preferred by petitioners and was absolutely justified in upholding
the order of learned SDO, whereby application of petitioners for
impleadment was rejected. Petitioners have failed to establish any
ground that would warrant the interference of this court under its
supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, present writ petition, being
devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
15. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
174-praveen/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 11:13:20 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
