[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Hansa Devi vs The Director (2026:Rj-Jd:9453) on 20 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9453]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 45/2026
Smt. Hansa Devi W/o Shri Ramesh Chand Patel, Aged About 54
Years, Resident Of Nathelao Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Director, Local Self Govt. Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Municipal Council, Banswara (Rajasthan).
3. Shri Narendra Jain S/o Shri Inder Mal Jain, Resident Of
Gali No. 28, Bahubali Colony, Banswara (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Shrimali
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
20/02/2026
1. This review petition has been filed seeking recalling of the
order dated 02.12.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.9259/2023.
2. The primary and foremost contention advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, while passing the aforesaid
order, this Court did not consider the legal precedents cited on
behalf of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, during the
course of arguments in the writ petition, reliance was placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohamed
Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi v. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay & Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 392, as well as upon a
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:04:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9453] (2 of 4) [WRW-45/2026]
judgment of the Jaipur Bench of this Court in Anna Mahak D/o
Md. Shakoor v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 Supreme
(Online) (Raj.) 28975, on the issue as to whether a complainant
is a proper or necessary party. However, the aforesaid judgments
were not considered while passing the order under challenge in
the present review petition.
4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, this Court
deems it appropriate to first examine the judgments relied upon
by learned counsel for the petitioner. In Mohamed Hussain
Gulam Ali Shariffi (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
as under:-
"13. In our considered opinion, having regard to the nature of
the controversy, which is the subject matter of the suit,
respondent Nos.2 and 3 are neither necessary nor proper
parties. As would be clear from mere perusal of the plaint, the
basic question, which is required to be decided in the suit, is
whether notice issued under Section 351 of the Act by
respondent No.1 (Corporation) to the appellant is legally valid
or not (see prayer (a) in the plaint - page 251 of Volume II of
S.L.P. Paper Book).
14. To decide this question, in our opinion, the only
necessary and property to the suit is the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai, i.e. Respondent No.1, who has
issued such notice, and for deciding this question either way,
the presence of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not at all required.
In other words, the suit can be decided even in the absence of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
15. It is a settled principle of law, which does not need any
authority to support the principle, that the plaintiff being a
dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person asparty 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
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:04:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9453] (3 of 4) [WRW-45/2026]
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.
17. In the suit in question, the Court is not called upon to
adjudicate the rights between the appellant and respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 in relation to the suit house. Any such dispute, if
arises, the same can be decided in the separate suit, which is
pending between the parties or may be filed, if required, by the
parties against each other but such dispute cannot be tried on
the cause of action pleaded in the present suit by the appellant
where the lis is essentially between the appellant(plaintiff) and
respondent No.1. Merely because the suit house is the subject
matter between all the parties is no ground to get the dispute
arising between the parties settled in one suit regardless of the
nature of cause of action on which the suit is founded."
4.1 This Court is also of the view that the petitioner is the
dominus litis of her case. However, in the present matter, a strip of
land was allotted to petitioner by the Municipal Board. The private
respondent, claiming his ownership over the said strip of land,
submitted his objection and considering such objection, allotment/
patta was cancelled. This Court has specifically considered the
grounds on which the petitioner preferred the appeal against the
order cancelling her patta. It was observed that the petitioner had
not only raised assertions regarding her title over the plot in
question but had also made submissions concerning the claim set
up by the private respondent in the complaint. In view of counter
claims over same piece of land, this Court held that the Director,
Local Bodies, had rightly proceeded to implead the private
respondent as a party respondent in the said appeal.
4.2 In contrast, in the case of Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali
Shariffi (supra), the challenge was confined only to the notice
issued therein. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the said judgment
is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:04:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9453] (4 of 4) [WRW-45/2026]
5. In the case of Anna Mahak (supra), the Jaipur Bench of this
Court reiterated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi (supra). However, in
that case, the matter pertained to the suspension of the petitioner
therein on the basis of a complaint, and the issue related to the
complainant seeking impleadment. Hence, the said judgment also
does not advance the case of the present petitioner.
6. So far as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the
cases of State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Mehta Chetandas
Kishandass, 1980 RLW (Raj.) 152, and Pukhraj & Anr. Vs.
Kunji & Ors., 1998 (1) RLW (Raj.) 23, are concerned, the
same have been cited to contend that a review is permissible
where the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not
been taken into consideration.
6.1 In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Consequently, the judgment relied upon by the petitioner rendered
in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. M/s. Mehta Chetandas
Kishandass (supra) does not require further consideration.
7. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to
permit review of the order. The review petition is, therefore,
dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
22-skm/-
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 01:04:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
