CW/4888/2021 of SMT. GEETA D/O LATE SH. CHANDALAL Vs HANUVANT SINGH S/O SH. SANGRAM SINGH on 18 August 2026

Order

18/08/2026

1. These three civil writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise against dismissal of petitioner's applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC, vide three separate orders dated 09.03.2021, 08.01.2021 and 09.03.2021 passed in respective three separate civil suits bearing No. 30/2005, 35/2005 and 16/2005 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 18, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Sanganer, Jaipur and since petitioner in all

(3 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] three writ petitions is a common person, as well as her right to claim impleadment in all three civil suits is also identical in nature, hence, all three writ petitions were tagged and would stand decided by this common order.

2. Since, on behalf of petitioner, on the previous two occasions, no one put in appearance and further proceedings in all three civil suits at the stage of final hearing are stayed, hence, on the prayer of learned counsel appearing for respondents-plaintiffs, the writ petitions have been heard finally on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for respondents-plaintiffs and perused the material available on record, including the impugned orders.

4. It appears that respondents-plaintiffs filed three separate civil suits for permanent injunction in respect of their plots situated in Singh Bhoomi Scheme, Jaisinghpura, developed by the Shankar Bhawan Development Cooperative Society Ltd. (for short “the Society”). Plaintiffs came up with a case one Sh. Chandalal sold his agricultural land to the Society, whereupon the Society developed the scheme and carved out and allotted plots therein to plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs, defendants, who are the widow and sons of late Sh. Chandalal, are creating hindrance in their peaceful use and occupation of the respective plots and, therefore, are liable to be restrained by way of permanent injunction. The aforesaid civil suits were instituted way back in the year 2005.

5. It further appears that defendants in all three suits, who are widow and four sons of deceased Sh. Chandalal, are common persons and they filed a joint written statement in all three suits,

(4 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] disputing the sale of the land by Sh. Chandalal in favour of the Society and also questioned the right, title and interest as well as possession of plaintiffs over the disputed plots. Defendants, while seeking dismissal of the suits for permanent injunction, also set up counter-claims against plaintiffs, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining plaintiffs from interfering with their possession over the lands in question.

6. It appears that on the basis of rival pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues. The issues are confined to the respective claims for permanent injunction raised by plaintiffs against defendants, and by way of counter-claims raised by defendants against plaintiffs. No issue relating to declaration of title, partition or determination of shares, or any other issue of such nature, is involved in the present civil suits or the counter-claims.

7. It further appears that the evidence of both parties has been concluded and all three suits have reached the stage of final hearing.

8. It appears that at the stage of final hearing, petitioner filed three separate applications in all three civil suits under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking her impleadment as a party defendant, on the ground that she is the daughter of late Sh. Chandalal and, has coparcenary rights in the lands left by him. Hence, she is a necessary, or at least a proper party to the suits and ought to be impleaded as a defendant along with the existing defendants.

9. All three applications filed by petitioner came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide three separate orders, which have

(5 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] been assailed by petitioner by filing the present three writ petitions.

10. The reasonings assigned by the learned trial Court in all three impugned orders for rejecting petitioner’s applications seeking her impleadment, is substantially similar. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2021 passed in Civil Suit No. 35/2005, which has been impugned in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2780/2021, is being considered as the lead order, and shall govern the adjudication of the other two writ petitions as well.

11. In the impugned order dated 08.01.2021, the learned trial Court has observed that the nature of the suit is of permanent injunction and the counter-claim raised by defendants is also of the same nature. No issue relating to declaration or partition arises for consideration in the suit. The scope of civil suit as well as the counter-claim is confined to adjudication of the respective claims for permanent injunction made by plaintiffs and defendants against each other. Therefore, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the presence of applicant is neither necessary nor required for effectually and completely adjudicating the issues involved in the suit.

12. Further, the learned trial Court doubted the bona fides of applicant in view of the fact that the application for impleadment was filed on 07.01.2021, when the suit had already reached the stage of final hearing, whereas the suit was instituted way back on 11.03.2005. The learned trial Court also noticed that the applicant has not disclosed the source from which she came to know about

(6 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] the pendency of the present suit. Finally, the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by petitioner, seeking her impleadment.

13. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis, i.e., the master of the suit, and ordinarily cannot be compelled to contest the suit against a person against whom no relief is claimed and whom the plaintiff does not seek to implead as a party. Nevertheless, the said principle is not absolute, and the Court with the aid of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, has the power to direct plaintiff to add any other person as a party to the suit, who ought to have been joined, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, completely, judiciously and effectually.

14. In the backdrop of the present matter, for adjudicating the issues involved in the suits and to consider the prayer for permanent injunction, the presence of petitioner is neither necessary nor required to enable the Court to adjudicate the civil suit. The prayer for permanent injunction made by respective parties against each other is confined to parties to the suits and, in order to adjudicate upon such prayer, it is not required to hear the applicant/ petitioner.

15. If applicant/ petitioner claims any right or share in the lands in question, disclosing herself to be the natural daughter of late Sh. Chandalal, she may raise her claim against defendants by initiating an independent and separate proceeding. As far as the suit filed by plaintiffs against defendants, and the counter-claim

(7 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] made by defendants qua plaintiffs are concerned, her presence may not be considered as necessary or proper in any way.

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has dismissed the applications filed by petitioner by assigning reasons which fall within the parameters of law and may not be considered to have resulted in any miscarriage of justice to petitioner. Hence, invocation of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders, is not warranted at all.

17. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the oft- quoted and landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. [2001

(8) SCC 97], wherein the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been explained as under:- “The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.” (Emphasis Supplied)

(8 of 8) [CW-4887/2021] The ratio decidendi expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Estralla Rubber (Supra), has been affirmed and reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu [2026 SCC OnLine (SC) 745], and in Para No.31, following observations have been made:- “31. The scope and ambit of the power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has been the subject matter of consideration before this Court in several judgments, and the law governing of its supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court, nor can it sit in appeal over the correctness of the orders passed by courts and tribunals over which it exercise the power of superintendence under Article

227. ”

18. As a final result, the writ petitions, being devoid of substance, are hereby dismissed. Interim stay orders dated 10.05.2021, 03.03.2021 and 10.05.2021 stand vacated.

19. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

20. A copy of this Order be sent to the trial Court forthwith in order to proceed with the final hearing in all three civil suits, and decide the same at the earliest possible. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ S-69 to 71