JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Writ Petition may kindly be accepted and allowed; A) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 (Annex.4) passed by PASSED BY SHRI PRAVEEN CHOUHAN, RJS, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE MOUNT ABU RAJASTHAN IN CIVIL ORIGINAL SUIT NO.5/2016 Harsh Gehani Versus Harjeet Gujaral may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by petitioner for impleading party Plaintiffs:-defendant Under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. may kindly be accepted and allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the respondent no.1-landlord instituted a suit before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mount Abu against the respondent no.2-tenant for eviction and recovery of arrears of the rent in relation to the premises in question.

2.1. During pendency of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner filed an impleadment application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC before the learned Court below, stating therein that the property in question is a joint property, and the respondent no.1 is the brother of the petitioner, and thus, they both are the coparceners in the property in question. The learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 rejected the said application of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the respondent no.1 are brother and sister and the respondent no.1 instituted the suit in question without knowledge of the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner being a necessary party to the suit ought to have been impleaded therein accordingly.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.1 is the brother of the petitioner and the property in question is a joint property of the petitioner and the respondent.1; therefore, the petitioner being a co-owner of the property, have a right of impleadment as party in the aforementioned suit.

3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the co-owner has a right to file an eviction suit, but if the other co-owner objects, then such co-owner is required to be impleaded as party in the eviction case. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is not justified in law.

3.3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724; Om Prakash & Anr. Vs. Mishri Lal (dead) Represented By His Lr. Savitri Devi (Civil Appeal No. 4309 of 2017, decided on 21.03.2017) and; Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari Vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate (1996) 6 SCC 373; and the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Navin Chander Anand Vs Union Bank of India & Ors. (RFA No. 544/2018, decided on 17.07.2018).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that earlier, the respondent no.2 also filed a similar application for impleadment of the petitioner, which was rejected by the learned Court below on 30.09.222; the said order was never challenged by the petitioner and thus, attained finality.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner herself admitted that the property in question is a joint property, and the suit in question was instituted by the respondent no.1, and thus, it was not necessary to implead the co-owner (petitioner) as a party in the suit in question.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the law, there is no requirement of all the owners of the property in dispute to be impleaded as party in the eviction suit, and thus, the impugned order passed by the learned Co