[2025:RJ-JP:1214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14764/2020 Dashrath Singh Son Of Shri Hoshyar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Iktarpura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner-Applicant Versus 1. Anita Kumari Daughter Of Shri Radheshyam Saini, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 2. Jyoti Kumari Daughter Of Shri Radheshyam Saini, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 3. Himanshu Son Of Shri Radheshyam Saini, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 4. Jagdish Prasad Son Of Shri Hanumanaram, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 5. Bajrang Lal Son Of Shri Hanumanaram, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 6. Radheshyam Son Of Shri Hanumanaram, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 7. Uchhav Kanwar Wife Of Shri Sawai Singh, Resident Of Iktarpura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). 8. Sanjana Daughter Of Shri Radheshyam, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) 9. Jaiprakash Son Of Shri Radheshyam, Resident Of Sanwatram Ki Dhani, Tan Bagad, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. L. Sharma, Adv. [2025:RJ-JP:1214] (2 of 3) [CW-14764/2020] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 09 /01/2025 The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant (for short ‘the applicant) against the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.29/2016 titled as “Anita Kumari & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors.”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit against the respondent Nos. 4 to 9 for declaring the sale deed dated 21.07.2008 as null and void and permanent injunction. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No.7 Uchhav Kanwar had executed the gift deed with regard to the land in dispute in favour of the applicant. So, applicant is the owner of the disputed land and mutation was also entered in the name of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the plaintiffs deliberately had not impleaded the applicant as a party in the suite. If the sale deed dated 21.07.2008 which was executed in favour of respondent No.7 by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 is declared as null and void, then right of the applicant would be affected. So, the applicant is a necessary party in the present suit. So, the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the applicant be impleaded as a party in the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:1214] (3 of 3) [CW-14764/2020] they had not sought any relief against the applicant. They clearly mentioned that the disputed land is their undivided ancestral land. So, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had no right to sell the disputed land to respondent No.7. So, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that plaintiffs had not sought any relief against the applicant. They just wanted to declare the sale deed dated 21.07.2008 executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in favour of respondent No.7 as null and void. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has rightly held that the applicant is not a necessary party in the suit. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/147