[2025:RJ-JP:50960] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13672/2019 Amit Kumar S/o Shri Parmanand, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Sindhi, Proprietor Rajasthan Textorium House Situated At C-15, Kailash Building In Front Of Rajmandir Cinema, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Vimla Devi Kasliwal W/o Late. Shri Lakshmi Kumar Kasliwal, Aged About 84 Years, R/o B-6-E, Adinath Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Through Power Of Attorney, Shri Sudhir Kasliwal. 1/1. Sudhir Kasliwal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Kumar Kasliwal, R/o B-6-E, Aadinath Nagar, Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/2. Sameer Andra S/o Late Shri Sanjay Kasliwal, R/o B-6-E, Aadinath Nagar, Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/3. Smt. Kalpana Kasliwal W/o Late Shri Pramod Kasliwal, R/o B-6-E, Aadinath Nagar, Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/4. Siddharth Kasliwal S/o Late Shri Pramod Kasliwal, R/o B- 6-E, Aadinath Nagar, Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 1/5. Samarth Kasliwal S/o Late Shri Pramod Kasliwal, R/o B-6- E, Aadinath Nagar, Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Shri Hemant Kumar S/o Late Shri Mohandas, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 123A, Nandpuri Hawa Sadak, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal with Ms. Alisha Chopra for Respondent Nos. 1/1 to 1/5 Mr. Dushyant Sharma on behalf of Mr. N.K. Gautam for Respondent No. 2 [2025:RJ-JP:50960] (2 of 3) [CW-13672/2019] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 17/12/2025 1. Heard on Application No. 1/2024, for early listing, the same is allowed. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is heard finally. 3. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2019, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, was rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had filed an application in the suit, wherein the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against his uncle for recovery of possession. 5. Since the petitioner was in actual possession on a part of the disputed property, he filed the application to be impleaded as a party. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in the possession of the property in dispute; however, he supports the order dated 24.07.2019. 7. Considered. 8. Since the learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the petitioner is in actual possession on some part of the property. Therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner- applicant is necessary party for deciding the suit. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 24.07.2019, is quashed and set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:50960] (3 of 3) [CW-13672/2019] 10. The application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is allowed. 11. The writ petition stands allowed. 12. The petitioner is permitted to be added as a defendant in the suit. (BIPIN GUPTA),J PARSHANT /40