[2025:RJ-JP:42161] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15755/2025 Rajkumar Meena S/o Shri Harikisan Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Itoli Tehsil Reni District Alwar Presently Shop- keeper Of Shop No. 21, Veer Chowk, Alwar District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Auganta W/o Sumit, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No 20 Goverdhan Darwaja, Kumhere, District Bharatpur (Raj.) Owner Shop No. 02, Ward No 13, 14, 16, Compos- ite Shop, Alwar Tehsil And District Alwar 2. District Excise Officer, Alwar Office Hasan Khan Mewat Nagar, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) 3. Excise Inspector West, Dehli Darwaja, Futi Khel Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ranvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 15/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.1, Alwar, District Alwar, in Regular Civil Suit No.34/279/2025 titled as 'Rajkumar Meena vs. District Excise Officer', whereby the application filed by applicant/respondent No.1 – Smt. Auganta W/o Sumit under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:42161] (2 of 3) [CW-15755/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of the relief claimed in the suit, the presence of applicant/respondent No.1 is not necessary. He further submits that, since the plaintiff/ petitioner being dominus litis, the learned Court below erred in impleading applicant/respondent No.1 as defendant No.3 in the suit. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and perused the record. 4. From a bare perusal of the facts, it is evident that the plaintiff/petitioner as well as the newly impleaded respondent have been allotted liquor shops in the different sites. The suit has been filed with a prayer that the District Excise Officer be restrained from creating any hindrance in the peaceful occupation and use of Shop No.21, Veer Chowk, Alwar, by the plaintiff/ petitioner. 5. The applicant/respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the plaintiff/petitioner has been granted a licence in respect of Shop No.15, UIT Shopping Complex, in front of Bus Stand, Alwar, whereas the plaintiff/petitioner in violation of licence so granted has commenced business in Shop No.21, Veer Chowk, Alwar. The applicant/respondent No.1 further stated that she has been allotted Shop No.2, Wards No.13, 14, and 16 by the District Excise Officer, and that due to the alleged mischief of the plaintiff/ petitioner, applicants rights and sales have been seriously prejudiced. She therefore sought to be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. [2025:RJ-JP:42161] (3 of 3) [CW-15755/2025] 6. After considering the facts of the case, the learned Trial Court categorically held that any decision passed in the suit or temporary injunction application would directly affect the right of the applicant. Further, for proper adjudication of the lis, the presence of applicant/respondent No.1 is necessary. Consequently, the application filed by applicant/respondent No.1 was allowed. 7. The petitioner has cleverly drafted the plaint without impleading the necessary party who's business is directly affected due to the mischief committed by the petitioner. Thus, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 01.09.2025, whereby applicant/respondent No.1 has been allowed to be impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the present Civil Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. The stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/15