A third party can be impleaded as a defendant in a suit for injunction where the Panchayat, which is the issuing authority of the Gram Panchayat, is not contesting the suit and the petitioner is claiming his own rights on the same land.

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

These writ petitions under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clauses are being taken from the leading case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2239/2017.

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Court, West, Bhilwara in pending suit No. 38/2013 and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioners as party defendants may kindly be allowed.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has come out with the specific submission that the respondent No. 1 claims to be in possession of the plot by virtue of a Patta issued by respondent No. 2 the Gram Panchayat.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 1 is seeking an injunction that Gram Panchayat be prevented from issuing a Patta in favour of another person or in interfering with the rights arising out of the Patta granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if such injunction is granted to respondent No. 1 then certainly the rights of the petitioner claiming title over the said land shall be effected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in [2012 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1573]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"9. Having passed the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed a bona fide apprehension that since the temporary injunction order dated 29.05.2012, has been passed in favour of the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat may overreach the said order by granting the Patta in favour of respondent No. 4. The learned counsel has brought the temporary injunction order to the noticed of the Court. According to the said order, the Gram Panchayat was directing not to dispossess the petitioner from the property in dispute. Considering the fact that the battle is now between the plaintiff and respondent No. 4, considering the fact that Gram Panchayat may over-reach the temporary injunction order and may issue a patta in favour of the respondent No. 4, it is, hereby, directed that the Gram Panchayat shall not issue any patta with regard to the property in dispute in favour of a third party including the respondent No. 4. On the issue, whether the order dated 29.05.2012 shall apply to the respondent No. 4. On the issue, whether petitioner is free to file an application for seeking injunction against the respondent No. 4, who is a newly added party to the suit."

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the same on the ground that the respondent No. 1 is the dominus-litus and therefore, it is not required for any other party to be impleaded particularly when the party concerned has separate remedies. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Narain Lal Atal v. The Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors. reported in [2014 (2) WLN 233 (Raj.)]. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under :

"4. A direction by the trial court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is in the nature of its discretion, no doubt exercised on judicially valid ground. The reasons set out by the learned trial court in dismissing the petitioner's application for impleadment under its order dated 17.01.2007 are to say the least detailed and well considered. Nothing erroneous can be found therewith. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner-applicant could not be allowed to inter-mingle in the plaintiff's suit more so when no relief as against the petitioner-applicant was claimed by the plaintiff and t