[2025:RJ-JP:40447] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10672/2025 1. Akshat Ghiya S/o Shri Brijesh Ghiya, R/o House No. 3, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 2. Aditi Ghiya W/o Shri Yash Agarwal, R/o Blue Sky Apartment, Sarojani Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur ----Petitioners/Applicants Versus 1. Kailash S/o Late Ramu, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Bhonda Ki Dhani, Village Bas Beelwa, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur …..Respondent/plaintiff 2. Subhash Sindhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Jaipur Regd. No. 1588/l, Through President/secretary, Registered Address Aa-3, Jai Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur ----Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav for respondent No.1 Mr. Umesh Vyas for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/10/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/applicants (in short ‘the petitioners’) with a challenge to order dated 26.05.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer, (in short ‘the learned Court Below’) in Civil Suit No.142/2022 (Kailash Vs. Subhash Sindhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.), whereby the application filed by the petitioners [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (2 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC for impleadment as party defendants to the suit proceedings was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case borne out from the pleadings are that the plaintiff/respondent- Kailash (in short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit impleading Subhash Sindhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Society’) as defendant for declaration and permanent injunction, with the averments that suit land is of him and of his brothers and they belong to Schedule Tribe Community (in short ‘ST Community’). When the persons of the Society came on the said land to take possession over that land, the plaintiff objected the same and then the persons of the Society showed him the photocopies of the agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996, which were in favour of the Society with regard to sale of the suit land. It was prayed in the suit that the agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996 be declared illegal and void and the pattas allotted by the Society over the suit land be also declared void and ineffective. It was further averred that since the plaintiff khatedar belongs to ST Community, the suit land cannot be transferred to a person other than the ST Community. The Society/defendant filed a written statement and stated therein that the Society has purchased the suit land through aforesaid agreements and legally issued pattas to its members. On the basis of the pleadings, certain issues were framed by the learned Court Below alongwith issue No.3, which is quoted as under:- [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (3 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] “ आयय वयदद ववरद पवतवयदद इस आशय कक सथयई वनषषधयजय कक वडकक पयप करनष कय अवधकयरद हह वक पवतवयदद वयद पत कक मद ससखयय 01 मम ववररत वववयवदत समपवत कष ससपपरर यय वकसद भद वहससष पर नय तत जबरन कबजय करम /करयवम, नय हद पलयवटसग कर उक पलयटट कष आवसटन पत/ पटय नय तत जयरद करम / करयवम ?” The petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC before the learned Court Below submitting therein that they have been allotted the plots by the Society of which one Dev Prakash Meena (D.P. Meena) is the convener (hereinafter is to be referred to as ‘the Convener’). The petitioners prayed that they be impleaded as party defendants/respondents as they are necessary, proper and effective party. The plaintiff submitted reply to the application filed by the petitioners and stated therein that since the suit land could not have been transferred to the Society in view of the bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short ‘the Act of 1955’) the Society has no right to issue pattas of the suit land and, therefore, the petitioners, who are the patta holders from the Society, are not necessary and effective party. The learned Court Below dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC vide order dated 26.05.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Convener of the Society after having purchased the suit land vide agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996, issued pattas in favour of the members of the Society, including the present petitioners. He further submits that the Convener of the Society got the sale deed registered in his own name from the khatedar and now, the plaintiff and the Convener, so as to frustrate the [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (4 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] rights of the petitioners, have got the collusive suit filed through the plaintiff. Learned counsel also submits that in the suit, the plaintiff has claimed relief for cancellation of the pattas issued to the members of the Society and, therefore, the petitioners who are allottees are necessary and effective parties. 4. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the dispute in the present suit is in between the plaintiff and the Society. He further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Arun Kumar & Ors. Vs. Smt Chhoti Devi & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9247/2014, decided on 26.11.2014, has held that members of the Society are neither necessary nor proper parties. He has also relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb & Anr. (2004) 1 SCC 191 and submitted that the suit proceedings are at fag end and it would not be proper to implead the petitioners/applicants as defendants in the suit proceedings. Learned counsel has also referred the order passed by this Court on 21.08.2025 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7889/2019 (New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Pandit Jagannath & Ors). 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Society/defendant- respondent has also opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners for impleadment. [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (5 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] 6. Considered the submissions made at bar by learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the material made available on record. 7. The plaintiff has filed the suit with the prayer clause, which is as under:- “ए- दयवय वयदद ववरद पवतवयदद मय हजयर खरयर वडकक वकयय जयवष। बद- पवतवयदद कष ववरद इस आशय कक घतषरय कक जयवष वक वयदगसत भपवम वजसकय ववसततत वववरर वयद पत कक मद सस. 1 मम ववररत हह, कक खयतषदयरद अननसपवरत जनजयवत कष मदरय समयज कष सदसय कक हतनष कष कयरर धयरय 42 (वबययलदस) बद रयज. कयशतकयरद अवधवनयम कष तहत पवतवयदद कत वकसद भद पकयर सष इस भपवम कत कय करनष, यतजनय कययम करनष, भपखणडट कष आवसटन पत / पटय जयरद करनष कय कतई अवधकयर नहह हह और वदनयसक 10/4/1996 (दस अपहल उनदस सस वछययनवम) एवस 8/4/1996 ( आठ अपहल उनदस सस वछययनवम) कष इकरयरनयमय पपररत वववध ववरद हतनष सष पयरमभ सष हद अवहध व शपनय हह वजनकक कतई वववधक अहवमयततय नहह हह और इन इकरयरनयमट कष आधयर पर पवतवयदद कष दयरय हननमयन नगर फष ज-1 कष जत आवयसदय आवसटन पत / पटष अपनष सदसयट कत पदत वकयष गयष हह वह भद शपनय व पभयवहदन हह।” 8. In the aforesaid prayer, the plaintiff has specifically sought relief that the residential allotment letters/pattas to its members by the Society, be declared void and ineffective. The learned Court Below has also framed issue No.3, related to allotment of letters/pattas, which has already been quoted in above para No.2 of this order. The aforesaid facts clearly shows that the relief has also been sought by the plaintiff qua patta holders and the learned Court Below has also framed issues in that regard. In this manner, any judgment or decree passed by the learned Court Below, certainly would affect the rights of the petitioners, as there is a specific relief clause and issue framed in relation to the pattas, issued by the Society. 9. The plaintiff by filing the suit has made challenge to sale agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996, by which his predecessors, who are the recorded khatedars of the suit land, have agreed to sell the land to the Society of which Dev Prakash [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (6 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] Meena (D.P. Meena), is the convener. Later on, the khatedars by way of registered sale deed have sold the land to the Convener in his personal name and not in the name of the Society that may be because of bar under Section 42 of the Act of 1955. 10. Once the plaintiff party has agreed to sell the suit land by way of agreements to the Society and later on executed the registered sale deed in the name of the Convener of the Society, then no claim of the plaintiff remains over the suit land. The registered sale deed has been executed in the name of the Convener of the Society, but on perusal of the written submissions submitted by the Society of which Dev Prakash Meena (D.P. Meena) is the Convener, nowhere disclosed this fact. The pattas have been issued to the petitioners by the Society after agreement to sale of the suit land by the plaintiff party and, therefore, the land has been sold by registered sale deed to the Convener of the Society. The plot holders can make a claim against the Society of which Dev Prakash Meena (D.P. Meena) is the Convener and now the Convener in collusion with the plaintiff got the suit filed qua the agreement to sale in the name of the Society so as to frustrate the claim of the Society and to secure the land for himself. The facts prima facie speak some kind of collusion of the plaintiff and the Convener of the defendant Society. 11. On 26.08.2025, during course of arguments in this matter before this Court, learned counsel for the plaintiff was put a query that once you have sold the suit land by an agreement to sale in the name of the Society and then transferred the land by a registered sale deed in the name of the Convener of the Society, [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (7 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] then why you have filed the suit as you have already transferred the suit land. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff to the query of this Court replied that the suit land has already been transferred by the registered sale deed in the name of the Convener of the Society, but the Society as a legal person and may sue qua the agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996. 13. This Court on 26.08.2025 also directed the parties to remain personally present before this Court, but the Convener of the Society and the plaintiff did not turn up. The Court also asked the learned counsel for the Society that once the plaintiff has sold the land by the registered sale deed in the name of the Convener of the Society then why the Society did not make a statement that they will not claim any right qua agreements dated 08.04.1996 & 10.04.1996. To this, learned counsel for the Society did not make any answer. 14. All the aforesaid facts prima facie speak that there is some kind of collusion in filing the suit, which may be to frustrate the rights of the petitioners/patta holders towards the Society/ defendant. 15. The judgment passed in case of Arun Kumar & Ors. (supra) is in a matter related to a suit filed by the Society for specific performance of a contract. Here in the present case, it is a suit where the plaintiff has filed a suit against the Society. Whether a person be impleaded as defendant or not, depends on the facts of each and every case. In opinion of this Court, the present case is distinguishable from the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. (supra). Another judgment referred by the learned counsel [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (8 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] for the plaintiff in case of Bibi Zubaida Khatoon (supra) is in regard to filing an application after long pendency of the suit. An application for impleadment can only be filed by an applicant when he came to know of the suit proceedings. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not bar any application at a particular stage in the suit proceedings, but speak that some applications can be filed even before pronouncement of the final judgment. It is not a case of the respondents that the petitioners were having knowledge of the suit proceedings much prior of filing of this application. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents have also referred the judgment passed by this Court in case of New Pink City Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd. (supra). In that case, the applicant was said to have purchased the plot from a patta/allotment letter holder by way of an agreement to sale. Since the applicant in that case was claiming his rights only on the basis of agreement to sale and the agreement to sale has not been held to be valid title of ownership. The learned Court below dismissed the application of the applicant for impleadment. The facts of that case are quite different from the facts of the present case. 17. In the present case, the facts prima facie speak of collusive nature of the suit and further there is a specific relief clause in the plaint and the issue with regard to allotment letters/pattas issued in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the presence of petitioners is required for effective adjudication of the dispute before the learned Court Below. [2025:RJ-JP:40447] (9 of 9) [CW-10672/2025] 18. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of this case are necessary and effective parties to the suit proceedings. Hence, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.05.2025 is quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC for impleadment is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners be arrayed as defendants in the suit proceedings. 19. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /75