The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead the petitioner as a party defendant, but directed the trial court to decide the pending suit expeditiously due to a 13-year delay.
Writ petition dismissed; trial directed to decide pending suit expeditiously.
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:14688]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8687/2013
Vishal Bajaj son of Shri Shiv Kumar Bajaj, resident of Bajaj Sadan, Outside Gangapole Darwaja, Opposite Kanhaiya Lal Nursery, Baas Badanpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Amit Jindal,Adv. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
01/04/2025
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.04.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) West, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having 1/3rd share in the ancestral property, therefore, he is necessary party in the suit filed by the plaintiff, but the trial Court vide its order dated 09.04.2013 has wrongly dismissed the application filed by him under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Hence, the
[2025:RJ-JP:14688]
[CW-8687/2013]
(2 of 2)
order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the petitioner be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the material available on record, it is noticed that the trial court while dismissing the petitioner’s application vide its order dated 09.04.2013 categorically observed that the petitioner had also filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, where he could very well prove his case. The trial court also noted that in the suit for permanent injunction, necessary and proper party are those, against whom the plaintiff wants to seek relief and in the said suit, the question with regard to ownership of the suit property cannot be gone into.
I am sanguine with the findings recorded by the trial court. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in this writ petition and the same stands dismissed accordingly.
However taking into consideration the fact that the suit was filed in the year 2012 and about 13 years have been passed therefrom, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit, if pending with it, expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of.
Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned court for information and compliance.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
AVINASH GULERIA /58
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to allow the writ petitioner as a necessary party defendant in a suit for recovery where he claims ancestral share.
Whether to direct expeditious hearing of a suit filed over 13 years ago.
Vishal Bajaj
Asha Kumari Bajaj
Shaukat Ali
Imran Ali
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Jaipur Metropolitan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
