HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17406/2023 Santosh Meena W/o Amarchand Meena, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Semla, Tehsil Laxmangarh District Alwar Rajasthan, Presently J-77, Paryavaran Complex, Ignu Road, New Delhi- 110068 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Krapal Yadav, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Plot No.b-255, Ramkrapal Nagar, Chor Dungri, Jaipur Road, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar Rajasthan Through Power Of Attorney Shri Rajeev Yadav S/o Late Shri Ramkrapal Yadav Aged 51 Years, R/o Plot No.h-255, Ramkrapal Nagar, Choor Dongri, Jaipur Road, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar Rajasthan 2. Urban Improvement Trust Alwar, Through Secretary, Officer Of Urban Improvement Trust Alwar, Bhagat Singh Ka Choraha, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar Rajasthan 3. Urban Improvement Trust, Through Chairman Office Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar, Bhagat Singh Ka Choraha, Alwar, Tehsil And District Alwar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. K. Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 10/02/2025 The civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- applicant(for short ‘the applicant’) against the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No.5, Alwar (for short ‘the trial court’) in Case No.34/218/22 titled as “Smt. Laxmi Devi Vs. Urban Improvement (2 of 3) [CW-17406/2023] Trust, Alwar”, whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the applicant under order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading her as a party/defendant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant Nos.2 and 3 in which the applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading her as as party- defendant but the trial court vide order dated 18.07.2023 dismissed the application filed by the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the plaintiff wrongly procured the Patta from the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The applicant had made a complaint regarding issuance of the said Patta. So, Patta of the plaintiff was cancelled by UIT. So, the applicant is a necessary party for adjudication of the suit filed by the plaintiff. So, the petition filed by the applicant be allowed and the order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the trial be set-aside. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of “Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya through Lrs. and Ors.” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 700. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the plaintiff had not sought any relief against the applicant in her suit. So, the trial court vide order dated 18.07.2023 rightly dismissed the application filed by the applicant. (3 of 3) [CW-17406/2023] I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the impugned order dated 18.07.2023 It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in which the plaintiff had not sought any relief against the applicant. The trial court vide order dated 18.07.2023 while dismissing the application filed by the applicant observed that if rights of the applicant are infringed, then she would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy before UDH through any other proper method. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/145