[2025:RJ-JP:15458] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3477/2019 Kailash Chand Saini Son Of Murlidhar Saini, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste Mali, R/o. Dhani Bida Ki, Tan Village Kanwat, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Manju Devi Wife Of Kailash Chand, By Caste Mali, R/o. Dhani Bidawali, Tan Village Jugalpura, Tehsil Srimadhopur, Presently Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. 2. Rakesh Kumar Mishra Son Of Raghuveer Prasad Mishra, By Caste Brahmin, R/o. Kanwat, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. 3. Premchand Samota Son Of Prabhatilal Samota, By Caste Jat R/o. Tan Village Loharwara, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar. 4. Vidyadhar Meel Son Of Richhpal Meel, By Caste Jat R/o. Tan Village Seelpur, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar. 5. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar. 6. Sub Registrar, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar. 7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.P. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 07/04/2025 1. By way of instant petition for writ, a challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sri Madhopur, District Sikar in Civil Suit No. 142/2014 (Smt. Manju Devi vs. Rakesh Kumar & others) vide which application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in short are that respondent No. 1- plaintiff – Smt. Manju Devi, the wife of the petitioner herein, [2025:RJ-JP:15458] (2 of 3) [CW-3477/2019] instituted a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the respondent Nos. 2 to 7 on 11.04.2014 on the ground that patta of disputed plot measuring 180 square yards was issued in the name of Jyanki Lal Nai and after his death, it devolved upon his heirs. She had purchased 1/5th portion in remaining plot admeasuring 131.12 square yards from its owner Smt. Kusum Sain through registered sale-deed on 19.01.2012 but no partition had taken place between the parties. During pendency of suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking to implead him as party defendant in the suit on the ground that he had purchased shop measuring 36 square feet situated in pattasud plot belonging to Kishan Lal through agreement to sell on 22.01.2007, therefore, his right and interest are involved in the property and he is necessary party in the suit. The trial court after hearing arguments of the parties on the said application, passed the order dated 30.11.2018 declining to implead him as defendant in the suit and rejected his application. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased disputed plot/shop from its owner Kishan Lal through agreement after payment of consideration of Rs.60,000/- and possessed over the property, therefore, right and interest of the petitioner are involved in the said property and he being a necessary party should have been impleaded as party defendant in the suit proceedings. Learned counsel has therefore prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:15458] (3 of 3) [CW-3477/2019] 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was not in possession of suit property in the capacity of co-owner, rather, he was a tenant, which would be established from the so-called agreement executed by Kishan Lal. The suit property was never sold to the petitioner. The petitioner was not a necessary party for adjudication of the suit. Therefore, it has been prayed that writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 6. I have heard submissions of rival parties and gone through the material on record. 7. The petitioner has filed application seeking impleadment as party defendant in the suit on the basis of so-called agreement. A perusal of said agreement reveals that it was specifically mentioned that disputed shop was given on rent after obtaining advance money of Rs. 60,000/- and there was no mention of transfer/selling the shop in question in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be co-owner of disputed property. The trial court after appreciating entire material on record has rightly passed the order rejecting the application and declining to implead the petitioner as party defendant in the suit, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner being bereft of any merit is dismissed. 9. The stay application also stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER /45