[2026:RJ-JD:354]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13830/2018 Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Jai Ram, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Sindhi Ward No. 1, 3 Str, Nai Mandi, Gharsana, District- Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Bimla Devi W/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, B/c Jat, Ward No. 1, 3 Str, Nai Mandi Gharsana, District- Sriganganagar (Raj.).

2. Jai Ram S/o Shri Sewa Ram, B/c Sindhi, Resident Of -

Ward No. 1, 3 Str, Nai Mandi, Gharsana, District-

Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Rajvi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

07/0 1/2026

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 03.08.2018, by which the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC preferred by the petitioner-

applicant was dismissed.

2. Facts germane to the present writ petition are that states that respondent no. 2 - defendant had taken the suit-premises on rent only for a limited period, but the defendant has refused to vacate the same and has also not paid rent. Thus, the respondent no. 1 - plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent since 22.09.2015 at the rate of Rs. 2500 per month.

3. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioner-applicant for impleadment as party-defendant in the suit. The petitoner contented that since she is the sole owner of the suit premises and is residing in the same along with her family, she is a necessary and proper party to the litigation.

4. The said application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit premises have already been sold by applicant to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 21.01.2015, and the applicant, therefore, is no longer the owner of the suit premises. It was further stated that after the purchase of the suit premises, the plaintiff has given the premises on rent to respondent no. 2 . The plaintiff thus submitted that the applicant is neither necessary nor a proper party in the suit and prayed for the dismissal of the application.

5. The learned trial court vide order dated 03.08.2018 has dismissed the application so preferred by the petitioner-applicant and refused to implead her in the suit between the parties.

6. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that learned Trial Court has failed to consider the factum of ownership of the petitioner over the suit premises. It is stated that the sale deed relied upon by the respondent no. 1 - plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document and that the said aspect can only be decided by the learned trial court in the presence of the petitioner in the suit. It was further submitted that Learned Trial Court has relied upon the negative final report submitted by the police and it is the settled position of law that the findings of the criminal court are not binding upon the civil court.

7. Countering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 - plaintiff submitted that the order impugned is a perfectly valid and justified order. It was stated that the applicant’s sole ground for claiming impleadment is her ownership of the suit premises. However, the premises in question have already been sold by the petitioner to respondent no. 1 by way of the registered sale deed, and therefore, the petitioner has no remaining right over the suit premises. Further, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the prayer made in the suit is only against the respondent no. 2, for the adjudication of which the presence of the petitioner is not required. Hence, her application was rightly rejected by learned Trial Court.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the record clearly shows that in the suit filed for recovery of the premises and rent arrears, the respondent