HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10513/2022 Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Gilya Ram, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Village Bahedko Kalan, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Prabhu S/o Bhorya Lal, R/o Bahedko Kalan, Tehsil Raini, Distt. Alwar (Died Through His Legal Representatives) 1/1. 1/2. 1/3. 2. Narbada W/o Late Prabhu Dayal, R/o Bahedko Kalan, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. Presently residing at Kali Mori Phatak, Purana Moti Nagar, Near Ganda Nala, Alwar Hari Om S/o Late Prabhu Dayal, R/o Bahedko Kalayn, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. Presently residing at Kali Mori Phatak, Purana Moti Nagar, Near Ganda Nala, Alwar Gajanand S/o Late Prabhu Dayal R/o Bahedko Kalayn, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. Presently residing at Kali Mori Phatak, Purana Moti Nagar, Near Ganda Nala, Alwar Badri Prasad S/o Shri Bhonrya Lal, R/o Bahedko Kalan, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar. Presently Residing At Kali Mori Phatak, Purana Moti Nagar, Near Ganda Nala, Alwar. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Alwar. 4. Tehsildar, Raini, Distt. Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/07/2025 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.04.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Raini District Alwar (for short, ‘the SDO’) the petitioner submitted a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue (for short, ‘the Board’), however, the same was rejected (2 of 4) [CW-10513/2022] vide impugned order dated 19.05.2022 while holding that the revision petition is maintainable. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that two different revenue suits were submitted, one bearing No. 01/389/2018 was submitted by the petitioner and the other suit bearing No.01/390 was submitted by the respondents before the Court of SDO with regard to the same subject land claiming their respective rights. Counsel submits that in the suit submitted by the petitioner, an application was submitted by the respondents under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the same has been allowed by the SDO vide order dated 15.05.2019. However, when a similar application was submitted by the petitioner for their impleadment in the suit filed by the respondents, the said application has been rejected by the SDO vide order dated 23.04.2021. Counsel submits that when the controversy involved in both the matters is with regard to the same subject land, then the petitioner is the necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondents before the SDO. Counsel submits that hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner has already been rejected by the SDO, hence the SDO has not committed any error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner in the suit filed by the respondents before the Court of SDO, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. (3 of 4) [CW-10513/2022] 4. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner submits that an appeal was preferred against the said judgement before the First Appellate Court. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that both the parties are claiming their respective rights on the subject land and for that purpose two different suits were filed by them without impleading each other as party in the array of cause title of the respective suits. This fact is not in dispute that in the suit submitted by the petitioner, the respondents submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment and the said application was allowed by the SDO vide order dated 15.05.2019 but at the same time, the application for impleadment submitted by the petitioner in the suit submitted by the respondents has been rejected vide order dated 23.04.2021. The Court below has committed an error in rejecting the application for impleadment submitted by the petitioner and has overlooked the fact that the dispute is pertaining to the same subject land by which two different suits have been filed and when the respondents have been allowed to participate in the suit filed by the petitioner then the petitioner is also required to be allowed to participate in the suit filed by the respondents. This fact is also not in dispute that the suit filed by the petitioner has been rejected and an appeal has been preferred against the same and the same is lying pending for its adjudication before the First Appellate Court. The SDO as well as the Board has committed an error in passing the order impugned, (4 of 4) [CW-10513/2022] which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The application submitted by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands allowed. The SDO is directed to implead the petitioner in the array of cause title in the suit filed by the respondents and proceed with the suit strictly in accordance with law. 8. The present writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/33