[2025:RJ-JP:9930] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6248/2024 1. Smt. Rita Devi W/o Rambabu Modi Deceased, Through Lrs. 1/1. Abhishek Modi @ Banty, S/o Rambabu 1/2. Sweta Modi @ Bitto, D/o Rambabu 1/3. Shilpa Modi @ Pinni D/o Rambabu, All Both R/o Chavni, Neemkathana, At Present Uma Colony, Kanak Vihar, Bhankrota Road, Jaipur, House No. P-39. Through Power Of Attorney Holder Ram Singh Saini S/o Shri Bheeva Ram Saini Aged About 45 Years, R/o Manpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Hazari Lal, Narayan Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kurbada, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. 2. Sitaram S/o Narayan Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kurbada, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar. 3. Rajesh Kumar Adopted S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Neemkathana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 4. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Shravan Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Manpura, Tehsil Neemkathana, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 5. Shravan Kumar S/o Bheeva Ram, R/o Babai, At Present Resident Of Infront Of Saini Medical Kapil Hospital, Neemkathana, District Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Chauhan with Mr. Mangal Singh Saini Mr. Omveer Singh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar Mr. Rajneesh Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:9930] (2 of 4) [CW-6248/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 06 /03/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the defendants- petitioners (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Neem Ka Thana (Sikar) in civil suit No. 10/2007 (2120/2014) titled as “Hazari Lal Vs. Rajesh and Ors.” whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Abhilasha and Lucky (daughter and son of defendant No. 1-Rajesh Kumar) has been allowed and they have impleaded as party defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) had filed a civil suit against the defendants for specific performance, permanent injunction and cancellation of the sale deed dated 08.03.2007 in which Abhilasha and Lucky (daughter and son of the defendant No. 1-Rajesh kumar) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as a party defendant in the suit and the trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 allowed the application and impleaded them as a party defendant Nos. 5 and 6. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiffs sought relief for specific performance of the agreement dated 06.01.2000 which was executed between plaintiffs and defendant No.1-Rajesh Kumar and also sought relief of cancellation of sale deed dated 08.03.2007 which was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the other defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:9930] (3 of 4) [CW-6248/2024] Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that it is an admitted position that the disputed property was in the name of Shyam Lal and defendant No.1 Rajesh Kumar is adopted son of Shyam Lal. Defendant No.1-Rajesh Kumar is still alive. So, son and daughter of the defendant No.1-Rajesh Kumar had no right to be impleaded as a party defendant Nos. 5 and 6 because plaintiffs had not sought any relief against them but the trial Court had committed an error in impleading them as a party defendant Nos. 5 and 6. So, the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant Nos. 5 and 6 submitted that disputed property belonged to the father of the defendant No.1-Rajesh Kumar. So, being son and daughter of defendant No. 1-Rajesh Kumar, they had equal share in the disputed property. Sale deed as well as agreement to sell was executed by the defendant No.1-Rajesh Kumar, who is alcoholic. So, they can very well defend their right. So, the trial Court rightly implead them as a party defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in the suit. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had filed present suit for specific performance of the contract and for cancellation of the so-called sale deed dated 08.03.2007. The sale deed dated [2025:RJ-JP:9930] (4 of 4) [CW-6248/2024] 08.03.2007 as well as agreement to sell was executed by defendant No. 1 Rajesh Kumar, who is still alive. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had committed an error in impleading Abhilasha and Lucky (daughter and son of defendant No. 1) as a party defendant Nos. 5 and 6. So, the present petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the trial Court is set aside and the petition filed by the defendants is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/208