O R D E R

05/03/2025

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.01.2025 seeking impleadment of petitioner as a necessary party in civil suit before Civil Judge, Didwana vide no. 77/2017 (New 35/2022) titled as Hazi Mamdu Khan Captain Saheb Trust Jharod Smriti Trust v/s State Bank of India & Ors. The prayer made in the instant writ petition is reproduced hereunder:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 28.01.2025 (Annex-3) may be quashed and set aside by allowing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC) by the petitioner may be allowed.

Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent no.1 preferred a civil suit before Civil Judge, Didwana vide no. 77/2017 (New 35/2022) for seeking permanent injunction against the different properties of one late Shri Ajmeri Khan who is father of the present petitioner which includes movable and immovable properties as well as amount pending in the bank accounts on various grounds.

3. That when the petitioner came to know about the facts of civil suit for permanent injunction against the properties of petitioner’s father, The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for her impleadment as a party to the suit proceedings along with certain documents such as birth certificate, electricity bill and Khatoni of Khasra no. 83 & 84 of village Jhalod.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 28.01.2025 on the ground that the petitioner/ applicant failed to establish the necessity of being a party.

5. Thus, in these circumstances the petitioner being aggrieved of order dated 28.01.2025 (Annex.-3) has preferred this writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the birth certificate it is evident that she’s daughter of Ajmeri Khan and the properties against which the permanent injunction is sought is already in the name of present petitioner being legally entitled & thus the order passed by learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. by the petitioner may be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that in event of passing any injunction by learned Trial Court against the properties mentioned in the suit that will have adverse effect upon the rights of the petitioner being legally not only owner as well as title holder in the revenue record.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, perused material available on the record.

9. Learned Trial Court has observed that Roshan Malwan cannot be considered as the legal successor of Ajmeri Khan for the reason that no document has been placed on record which proves her as legal successor and that there is merely a statement that she has availed remedy for grant of succession certificate under Section 272 of Succession Act, 1925. Furthermore, applicant has nowhere stated as to how Roshan Malwan is a necessary party to the suit as the plaintiff in civil suit before learned Civil Judge has not sought any relief against Roshan Malwan. Moreover, it is a well-established principle of law that the plaintiff is the owner/ master of his case & cannot be forced to fight a case against a stranger. It is the plaintiff's right to decide against whom he wants to bring a claim.

10. This court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightfully considered that the application before learned Trial Court in civil suit no.77/2017 (New no. 35/2022) is for seeking permanent in- junction and no rights for title are being declared in the said civil suit and that plaintiff (Hazi Mamdu Khan) in the said civil suit before Civil Judge has not sought