A party claiming ownership through a registered sale deed is a necessary and proper party to be impleaded in a suit concerning the same property.

Order

29/01/2024

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pavta, District Jaipur by which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading her as defendant in the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiff’) has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was purchased by the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on 21.10.2016. Counsel submits that two different suits have been filed by the plaintiff and his mother Dhuni Devi with regard to the same property in question before the Court. Counsel submits that in the suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff i.e. Dhuni Devi, the suit filed by the plaintiff, the petitioner has not been impleaded as defendant. Counsel submits that since the petitioner is claiming his right, title and interest over the property in question, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party, to be impleaded as party in the present suit. Counsel submits that all these facts were overlooked by the trial Judge while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

3. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a limited prayed has been made by the plaintiff against the respondent Electricity Department i.e. Jaipur Vidhyout Vitran Nigam Limited, for reconnecting the disconnected electricity connection. Counsel submitted that no other relief has been claimed against anyone and the plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be forced to litigate the matter against whom no relief has been claimed. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the trial Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of the record indicates that two different suits have been filed with regard to the same property in question. One by the plaintiff and the other by the mother of the plaintiff i.e. Dhuni Devi with regard to the same property in question. This fact is also not in dispute that in suit filed by the mother of the plaintiff, the matter of the land in question in both the matters is one and same, so under these circumstances, the petitioner is claiming himself as owner of the property in question on the basis of the registered sale deed. Hence, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party for impleading her in the suit filed by the plaintiff.

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the trial Judge, while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 stands allowed. The trial Court is directed to implead the petitioner as defendant in the present suit.

7. Stay application and all application(s) (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.