The plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom no relief is sought, unless that party is a necessary party without whom the suit cannot proceed or the relief cannot be granted.

Order

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 27.12.2023 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby revision petition preferred on behalf of petitioner-applicants, challenging order dated 30.04.2012, was rejected.

2. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 - plaintiff filed a suit against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 seeking declaration of khatedari rights, correction of revenue entries, and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing old Khasra No. 547, ad-measuring 11.3 bighas, and old Khasra No. 559, ad-measuring 11.8 bighas, situated in village Sukher, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (“land in question”) on the basis of exclusive possession over the land in question.

2.1 It is further stated that earlier, father of respondent No. 1 was in possession of the land in question and thereafter, respondent no. 1 remained in possession, therefore Tehsildar, Girwa issued a notice under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act against plaintiff - respondent no. 1 which gave rise to cause of action for filing of suit by respondent no. 1.

2.2 During pendency of said suit, present petitioners, being the daughter and wife of Jamna Lal, who was son of late Deva Ji, preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, stating therein that, petitioners, being legal representatives of late Deva Ji, also have rights in the joint Hindu family property and, therefore, outcome of the suit would affect their rights as well. On these grounds, a prayer for their impleadment was made.

2.3 Application preferred on behalf of petitioners was objected to by respondent No. 1 on the ground that after the death of Deva Ji, respondent No.1, Veni Ram alone remained in possession of the land in question and, therefore, notices under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act were issued in his name alone. It was further contended that suit in question has been filed on the basis of long possession against respondent nos. 2 & 3 therein and that no relief as such has been sought against petitioner-applicants.

2.4 Learned SDO, Girwa, while passing order dated 30.04.2012, has rejected application filed by petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.

2.5 Challenging the said order, a revision petition was preferred before Board of Revenue and same has also been dismissed vide order dated 27.12.2023, wherein learned Board of Revenue has held that issues raised in the suit could be decided inter se the existing parties and plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead a party against whom no relief has been claimed.

2.6. Challenging the said order dated 27.12.2023, present writ petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned Revisional Court failed to take into account that after the death of Deva Ji, all rights vested in his two sons i.e. Veni Ram and Jamna Lal and applicants - being legal representatives of late Jamna Lal, are necessary parties to the present suit. Learned counsel stated that law with regard to Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has not been considered by learned Revisional Court in judicious manner, hence order impugned is not tenable in the eyes of law.

3.1 Learned counsel further argued that rejection of petitioners’ application would lead to multiplicity of proceedings; however, even this aspect has not been taken into consideration by learned Revisional Court.

4. Countering the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, argued that order passed by Revisional Court is wholly justified a