[2026:RJ-JP:5913]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2001/2026

1. Arvind Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Narayan Joshi, R/o Village Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

2. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Narayan Joshi, R/o Village Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

3. Bhagwan Sahai S/o Shri Narayan Joshi, R/o Village Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus

1. Islamuddin S/o Rahim Khan Deswali, R/o Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ..Respondent/Plaintiff

2. Madanlal S/o Shrikishan, R/o Khawaso Ka Mohalla, Bhagato Ki Gali, Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur

3. Apsara Bano W/o Tesdik Mohammed, R/o Ward No.6, Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur ----Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

09/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 28.10.2025, passed by Learned Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Phagi, District Jaipur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case are that plaintiff-Islamuddin filed a suit against defendant namely, Madanlal and Apsara Bano simplicitor for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit an application came to be filed by plaintiff for deleting the name of defendant No. 2, which came to be allowed vide order dated 19.10.2024. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to be impleaded as party defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed reply to the said application.

3. After hearing on the said application, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application of petitioners, vide order dated

28.10.2025.

4. Hence, the present civil writ petition.

5. Lerarned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order dated 28.10.2025, has been erroneously passed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the property in dispute, for which the injunction has been sought, belongs to the applicant-defendant, therefore, he was a necessary party in the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Trial court has rejected his application on the ground that the applicant had failed to prove, whether the property in dispute is the same property of which applicant is claiming rights.

7. He contends that the application has wrongly been rejected as the fact of the property been same or not to have been adjudicated only after he be impleaded in the suit. Consequently, he prayed that the order dated 28.11.2025 may be quashed and set aside.

8. Heard

9. On perusal of record this court finds that the suit was simplicitor for permanent injunction. It is settled principle of law that in suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff is the dominus litis, cannot be compelled to contest the suit against any particular person or make any third person a party to the suit against his wish.

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Ors.; 2026 INSC 8 has reiterated that one who institutes the suit is the dominus litis and it is their prerogative to choose their adversaries. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein below:

“39. This apart, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes. The decree, if any, passed in the suit would be binding only between the parties to the suit and would not infringe upon any right of a third party, much less of the appellant that is not a party to the suit.”

11. In view of the settled legal position, this court finds no reason to interfere in the order dated 28.10.2025.

12. However, it is made clear that any judgment and