KULDEEP SINGH S/O GAJRAJ SINGH v. ANIL KUMAR SUJANTI S/O LATE SHRI KANHAIYALAL
CW/19069/2025 · 2025-12-08
Bipin Gupta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43238 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 43238 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:49861] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19069/2025 Kuldeep Singh S/o Gajraj Singh, R/o 1193/28, Inside Mala Tiles Factory, Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus
1. Anil Kumar Sujanti S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 4/263, Lakhan Kotdi, Ajmer
2. Sunil Kumar Sujanti S/o Late Shri Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4/263, Lakhan Kotdi, Ajmer ……….Respondent/Non-Appellants/Applicants
3. Deceased Sumer Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Mohabbat Singh, Deceased Through Legal Heirs- 3/1. Smt. Kanchan Kanwar Wd/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, 3/2. Shailendra Singh S/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, 3/3. Vikram Singh S/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, 3/4. Daljeet Singh S/o Late Shri Sumer Singh, All R/o 2354/28, Padanga House, Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer
4. Deceased Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Late Shri Mohabbat Singh, Deceased Through Legal Heirs:
4/1. Smt. Madhu Kanwar Wd/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 63 Years, 4/2. Randhir Singh S/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 41 Years, 4/3.Bhawani Singh S/oi Late Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years, All R/o 1193/28, Adarsh Nagar, Nasirabad Road, Ajmer
4/4. Smt. Ranjna Kanwar W/o Shri Banne Singh D/o Late Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Village Borkheda, District Kota
[2025:RJ-JP:49861] (2 of 3) [CW-19069/2025] ----Proforma-Respondents/Appellants/Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order 08/12/2025
1. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Ajmer in Rent Appeal No.45/2017 whereby, the petitioner’s application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed by the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal seeking impleadment as party-appellant in the appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an eviction petition was filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against respondents No.3 and 4. The eviction petition was decreed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. Appeal filed by respondent No. 3 and 4, during the pendency of the appeal filed by respondents No.3 and 4, an application came to be filed by the petitioner claiming that the property in dispute had been purchased for Rs.30,000/- by the petitioner’s grandfather, Late Mohhabat Singh. It was further asserted that, being a co-owner, the petitioner has a right in the property, which he has been utilizing peacefully, and therefore, he is entitled to be impleaded as an appellant in the pending first rent appeal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Appellate Tribunal, without considering the material aspects, has rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
[2025:RJ-JP:49861] (3 of 3) [CW-19069/2025]
4. Heard.
5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the decree of eviction was passed against respondents No.3 and 4 vide
judgment dated 16.05.2017, against which an Appeal bearing No.45/2017 was filed. During the pendency of the appeal, an application came to be filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead himself as a party after 8 years of pendency of appeal.
6. This Court further finds that there is not even a single averment in the petitioner’s application, that he was residing with his grandfather, Mohhabat Singh, and thereafter, with his father, Gajraj Singh, as a tenant in the disputed property during their lifetime and after death. It has also not been pleaded that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed property as a tenant. In the absence of such pleadings, no right accrues to the petitioner to seek impleadment as a tenant in the disputed property. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
7. This Court finds that the application was not only filed at a highly belated stage but was also wholly misconceived.
8. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/18