HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7800/2021

Ramesh Chand Son Of Shri Ghisi Ram, Aged About 52 Years,

Resident Of Dr. Rangey Raghav Colony, Town Weir, Tehsil Weir,

District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Applicant-Petitioner

Versus

1.

Smt Geeta Devi Wife Of Shri Braj Mohan Saini, Resident

Of Dr. Rangey Raghav Colony, Town Weir, Tehsil Weir,

District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

Plaintiff/Respondent

2.

Executive Officer, Nagar Palika Weir, District Bharatpur

3.

Chairman, Nagar Palika Weir, District Bharatpur.

----Defendants-Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. B.L. Dhakar

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. T.C. Vyas

Mrs. Sudesh Kasana

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

23/01/2023

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India is filed by the applicant/petitioner (for brevity “the

applicant”) against the order dated 15.07.2021 passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Weir, District Bharatpur whereby, an

application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his

impleadment as defendant, has been dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent

No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff”) filed a suit

for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents

No.2 & 3/defendants praying therein that the defendants may be

(2 of 3)

[CW-7800/2021]

restrained from interfering with her use and occupation of the

subject property. During its pendency, the applicant filed an

application seeking his impleadment on the premise that the

defendants have initiated proceedings for removal of

encroachment by the plaintiff in pursuance of an order dated

20.02.2020 passed by the Sub-Committee, District Public

Grievance and Vigilance, Bharatpur on his complaint. Vide order

impugned dated 15.07.2021, the learned trial Court has dismissed

the application filed by the applicant.

Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the

applicant submits that since, action by the respondents to remove

encroachment by the plaintiff was initiated in pursuance of an

order passed on his complaint, he was a necessary party to the

suit and therefore, the learned trial Court erred in rejecting his

application. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed,

the order dated 15.07.2021 be quashed and set aside and the

application filed by him seeking his impledment as defendant be

allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 would

submit that the learned trial Court has dismissed the application

vide order dated 15.07.2021 taking into consideration the material

on record and has recorded a categorical finding that the applicant

was neither necessary nor proper party which does not warrant

interference of this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. She,

therefore, prays that for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory

injunction against the respondents No.2 & 3 praying therein to

(3 of 3)

[CW-7800/2021]

restrain them from interfering with her use and occupation of the

subject property. In the present case, in the suit for injunction, in

the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not

err in rejecting the application filed by the applicant seeking his

impleadment as defendant merely because action was initiated by

the respondents on his complaint. It is trite law that the plaintiff is

dominus litis and cannot be compelled to litigate against a person

not of his/her choice subject to provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2)

CPC.

This Court finds no reasons to interfere with the judicious

discretion exercised by the learned trial Court based on material

on record.

In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of

merit.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Manish/42