[2025:RJ-JP:9941] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14038/2024 1. Hazarilal, S/o Shri Narayanram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Kurbada, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Sitaram S/o Shri Narayanram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kurbada, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajesh Kumar Adopted S/o Shri Shyamlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) 2. Mst. Reeta Devi W/o Shri Rambabu Modi (Since Deceased), Through Her Legal Representatives- 1/1. Abhishek Modi @ Banti, S/o Shri Rambabu 1/2. Shweta Modi @bitto, D/o Shri Rambabu 1/3. Shilpa Modi @ Pinni D/o Shri Rambabu, All R/o Chhawani Neem Ka Thana, Presently R/o Uma Colony Kanak Vihar Bhakhrota Road Jaipur House No. P-39 (Raj.) 3. Mst. Lali Devi (Since Deceased), Through Her Legal Representatives- 3/1. Smt. Asha Devi, D/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Saini 3/2. Versha, D/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Saini 3/3. Deepak Saini S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Saini, All R/o Manpura, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.). 4. Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Bhinwaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Babai, Presently R/o In Front Of Aabad Saini Medical Kapil Hospital, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.). 5. Abhibhasha D/o Shri Rajesh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Near Laxmi Takies, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). 6. Lakki S/o Shri Rajesh, R/o Ward No. 12, Near Laxmi Takies, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta [2025:RJ-JP:9941] (2 of 4) [CW-14038/2024] For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Chauhan with Mr. Mangal Singh Saini Mr. Omveer Singh Saini Mr. Vikash Kumar Jhakar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 06 /03/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) 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 (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) in the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that 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 plaintiffs also submits that plaintiffs sought relief for specific performance of the agreement dated 06.01.2000 which was executed between plaintiffs and defendant [2025:RJ-JP:9941] (3 of 4) [CW-14038/2024] 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. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs 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 defendants has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 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 plaintiffs being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. [2025:RJ-JP:9941] (4 of 4) [CW-14038/2024] 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 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-Rajesh Kumar) 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 plaintiffs is allowed. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/209