[2026:RJ-JD:12459]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4607/2026

1. Shamsher Singh S/o S/o Lakha Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Chak 39 H, Burjwala Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan

2. Gurjeet Kaur, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Chak 39 H Burjwala Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus

1. Baghel Singh S/o Lakha Singh, R/o Chak 39 H Burjwala Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan

2. Harwinder Singh S/o S/o Baghel Singh, R/o Chak 39 H Burjwala Tehsil Sri Karanpur District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan

3. Manjeet Kaur w/o Ujagar Singh D/o Lakha Singh, R/o Mohanpura, Tehsil & District Sri Ganganagar

4. Gurmeet Kaur W/o Daljinder Singh D/o Lakha Singh, R/o Chak 9 O, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Baltej Singh Sandhu For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohitash Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

16/03/2026

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners– plaintiffs against the order dated 06.12.2025 (Annx.6) passed by the Additional District Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar in Civil Original Suit No. 28/2025 (CIS No. 28/2025) titled as ‘Gurjeet Kaur & Ors. vs. Baghel Singh’, whereby the application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the respondent No.2–

applicant has been allowed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have instituted the civil suit seeking partition of the property and permanent injunction in respect of residential plots and vacant plots alleged to be ancestral property. It is contended that respondent No.2 has no right, title or interest in the suit property and, therefore, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings. It is further contended that the petitioners, being dominus litis, are entitled to choose the parties to the suit and the trial court has erred in allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. and impleading respondent No.2 as defendant No.2 in the suit.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 on caveat, supports the impugned order and submits that respondent No.2 has claimed possession over the disputed courtyard on the basis of a compromise dated 23.08.2023 allegedly arrived at between the parties in the presence of the Panchayat. It is contended that since respondent No.2 asserts an independent claim over part of the suit property and alleges that the suit has been filed in collusion to dispossess him, therefore, his presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and have gone through the record.

6. Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. empowers the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the presence of such person is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

7. In the present case, respondent No.2 has asserted that the disputed ahata was left in his favour on the basis of a compromise dated 23.08.2023 and that he is in possession thereof. The trial court, after considering the pleadings and the nature of the dispute involved in the suit for partition and permanent injunction, has formed an opinion that respondent No.2 appears to be a necessary and effective party for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.

8. The order passed by the trial court reflects due consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the nature of the claim set up by respondent No.2. The exercise of discretion by the trial court in allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. cannot be said to suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or patent illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in