[2025:RJ-JP:1877] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9632/2021 M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Office At 219-220, Iind Floor, Vipul Agora, M.g. Road, Gurgaon 122001 Haryana Through Authorized Representative General Manager Bimal Kapoor Represented By Director And Authorized Representative Mr. Swaraj Singh. ----Petitioner Versus M/s Pacific Infra Buildtech Pvt Ltd, Company Constituted Under Companies Act 1956 Registered Office A.t.c.- 144, Iiird Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi Through Authorized Representative Sanjay Jain S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jain, R/o D 80, Sector 36, Noida. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Sahil Parashar, Adv. Mr. Hemant Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. with Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment :: 15/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar (for short ‘the trial Court’) in case No.73/2014 whereby the trial Court rejected the application filed by the defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent- plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for cancellation of [2025:RJ-JP:1877] (2 of 3) [CW-9632/2021] mortgage deed dated 25.03.2009, for permanent injunction and to get original documents from the defendant in which the defendant filed written statement along with counter-claim. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that plaintiff withdrew his suit but counter-claim of the defendant was still pending. The defendant filed an application before the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 10.04.2019 and under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 16.05.2019 to implead Regional Manager, RIICO EPIP and M/s United Beverages Ltd., Shahjahapur as a party respondent and consequentially allowed him to amend the counter-claim but trial court vide order dated 28.07.2021 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that plaintiff had sold the disputed property to M/s United Beverages Ltd. and matter is pending before the Regional Manager, RIICO, so these are the necessary parties in the defendant's counter-claim. So, order dated 28.07.2021 passed by the trial court be set aside and application filed by the defendant be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was withdrawn and counter-claim is pending and the defendant wanted to enlarge the scope of the counter-claim by way of present amendment as well as application for impleadment of the party. He further submits that trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant because defendant was at liberty to bring separate suit against the RIICO as well as M/s United Beverages Ltd. So, the present [2025:RJ-JP:1877] (3 of 3) [CW-9632/2021] petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit and counter-claim filed by the defendant is pending. The defendant wanted to implead the RIICO and Ms. United Beverages Ltd. as a party because M/s Pacific Spirits Pvt. Ltd. as well as plaintiff had sold the disputed property to M/s United Beverages Ltd and the matter is pending before the Regional Manger, RIICO. The trial court while dismissing the application filed by the defendant clearly mentioned that defendant was at liberty to file separate suit. So, in my considered opinion trial court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand, disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVG/92