The High Court bench dismissed a civil writ petition contesting an order of Senior Civil Judge Kumher allowing impleadment of applicants as party defendants. Upholding the trial court's finding that the disputed shop belonged to the applicants' father, the bench held the petition devoid of merit.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:14655]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15091/2023
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
[2025:RJ-JP:14655]
[CW-15091/2023]
(2 of 3)
01/04/2025
This Civil Writ Petition has been filed by the petitionersplaintiffs against the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kumher, District Bharatpur in Suit No.59/2016, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 6-applicants (for short’ the applicants’) has been allowed and they have been impleaded as party defendant Nos.2 to 7.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the respondent No.7-defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) in which applicants filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Trial court vide order dated 10.07.2023 wrongly allowed the application filed by the applicants. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that plaintiffs filed the suit on the basis of the Will executed in favour of Shivshankar who is husband and father of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that validity of the Will cannot be agitated in the present suit. If applicants had any grievance regarding Will, they had liberty to file a separate suit. So, the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the trial court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submitted that before filing the eviction suit, plaintiffs had sent a notice to Gaurav who was collecting rent without any authority. Defendant-Gaurav had given reply. Tenant-Pammi Jain in his written statement stated that disputed shop belongs to Murari Lal. So, trial court rightly impleaded the applicants as party defendant.
[CW-15091/2023]
[2025:RJ-JP:14655]
(3 of 3)
So, present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the applicants.
It is an admitted position that plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-Pammi Jain but before filing of the suit, they had given notice to Gaurav for allegedly collecting the rent. They had not impleaded the applicants as party defendant. As per contention of the defendant-Pammi Jain in his written statement, disputed shop belongs to Murari Lal. So, in my considered opinion, trial court had not committed any error in impleading the applicants as a party defendant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
Pending application, if any, stand(s) dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /293
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court committed an error in impleading the applicants as party defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in an eviction suit.
Whether the present writ petition challenging theimpleadment order is liable to be allowed.
Usha Devi W/o Shivshankar and others
Hariom Gupta S/o Shri Murari Lal and others
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
