Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANJEET PUROHIT
Arvind Kumar S/o Bhagwati Lal Dhiliwal – Appellant
Versus
Shivnath S/o Kishan Nath – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.07.2025 passed by Court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh (“learned trial court”) in Civil Original Suit No. 3/2026 (Arvind vs. Shivnath & Ors.) rejecting the application of petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and refusing to implead Shri Dinesh Sharma S/o Shri Nandlal Sharma, as party-defendant in suit proceedings.
2. Facts giving rise to the present writ petition are stated in succinct as below:
2.1. Petitioner-plaintiff preferred a suit for specific performance as well as cancellation of sale deed dated 12.02.2016, stating therein that four agreements to sell dated 08.02.2010 and three other agreements to sell dated 11.06.2010, said to be executed by defendants, promising to sell their share of land to the plaintiff. However, defendants have refused to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff, which has given cause of action to the plaintiff to seek prayer of specific performance of the said agreements to sell.
2.2. It is further stated that instead of executing sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 have executed a sale deed dat
The court affirmed that a plaintiff's right to join parties (dominus litis) is subject to judicial discretion, and a proposed party must be necessary for a complete adjudication of the suit.
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
The court may compel the addition of necessary parties to a suit despite the plaintiff's choice, ensuring all interested parties can be adjudicated effectively.
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.
A plaintiff in a civil suit is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against their will unless their involvement is necessary for just adjudication.
An applicant seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest and right to relief concerning the controversy in a suit; absence of such a link renders the request for impleadment invalid.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
