[2026:RJ-JP:6914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2861/2026 Subesingh Son Of Shri Latoor, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Gunti, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) ----Petitioner-Applicant Versus 1. Rangrao Son Of Shri Harnarayan, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Mohladiya, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli Behror (Raj.) 2. Assistant Engineer (Pawas), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Discom, Behror, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.). 3. Executive Engineer (Pawas), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur Discom, Behror, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.). 4. Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jaipur, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents-Defendants-Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr Prakash Jha for Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 13.10.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Behror (Kotputli), whereby the application of the applicant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and [2026:RJ-JP:6914] (2 of 3) [CW-2861/2026] permanent injunction with regard to the land situated at Khasra No.1989 and 1991 and prayed that the defendant-Electricity Department may not install any pole in the aforementioned lands. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the khatedar of Khasra No.1990 and the defendant-Electricity Department is bent upon to install the pole in his khatedari land of Khasra No.1990 and therefore, submits that he is a necessary party to the suit. 4. Heard. 5. This Court finds that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was in regard to Khasra No.1989 and 1991 and have neither claimed any relief in regard to the land of applicant-petitioner nor have claimed any relief against the applicant-petitioner. 6. This Court also finds that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and no individual can compel a person to pursue a remedy against an individual person. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tarun Keshrichand Shahand Ors.; 2026 INSC 8 has reiterated that one who institutes the suit is the dominus litis and it is their prerogative to choose their adversaries. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced herein below: “39. This apart, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries. If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk. However, they cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes. The decree, if any, passed in the suit would be binding only between the [2026:RJ-JP:6914] (3 of 3) [CW-2861/2026] parties to the suit and would not infringe upon any right of a third party, much less of the appellant that is not a party to the suit.” 7. This Court thus finds no error so as to call for any interference in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J JUBIN /5