[2026:RJ-JP:14012] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5944/2026 1. Feliram Son Of Arjunlal Meena, Resident Of Village Dholawas, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. 2. Smt. Badam Devi Wife Of Mithalal, Resident Of Dholawas, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj.). ----Non-Applicant-Petitioners Versus 1. Kailash Son Of Ramsahay, Resident Of Village Patalwas, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. Applicant-Respondent 2. Jawani Singh Son Of Harsahay Meena, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Patalwas, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. 3. Jagdish Son Of Shravan, Resident Of Village Patalwas, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. 4. Sub-Registrar, Rahuwas, Office Of Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. ----Non-Applicant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S N Meena For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 06/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 09.02.2026, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lalsot, District Dausa, in Case No. 03/2025, whereby the application by the applicant-respondent Kailash under Section 151 CPC has been partly allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Jawani Singh, who is respondent No. 2 herein, had filed a suit for specific performance against the defendants who are arrayed as [2026:RJ-JP:14012] (2 of 3) [CW-5944/2026] respondent No. 3 and the petitioner herein. The said suit for specific performance of an agreement was with respect to share of the land of the petitioner in Khasra No. 51. 3. In the suit, a temporary injunction application was also filed which was allowed by consent of both the parties and it was ordered that the parties shall maintain status quo in regard to the site as well as record. 4. However, in the garb of the said order, the petitioners who were the defendants in the suit were not permitting the other co- tenant namely Kailash to carry out and use his share in the property. 5. Therefore, he was compelled to file an application under Section 151 CPC before the learned Trial Court. 6. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.02.2026, rejected the prayer of the applicant-respondent Kailash to permit him to make construction. However, the order was clarified that he would be entitled to use his share in Khasra No. 51. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners who were the defendants in the suit have preferred the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the applicant-respondent Kailash was not a party to the suit and without filing an application for impleadment, the order impugned has been passed. 8. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court raised a query to learned counsel for the defendants that whether the Kailash is the co-tenant of Khasra [2026:RJ-JP:14012] (3 of 3) [CW-5944/2026] No. 51 or not. To the said query, learned counsel submits that Kailash is the co-tenant of the Khasra No. 51. 10. Once it is found that applicant-respondent Kailash is a co- tenant of Khasra No. 51, then, under the garb of a stay on Khasra No. 51, the land in dispute, the share of petitioner which has been sold by the petitioners to one Jawani Singh, regarding which a suit for specific performance has been pending. The rights of the co- tenant Kailash could not have been interfered with in any manner by defendants No. 2 and 3. 11. This Court finds that, for the purpose of clarification to the effect that the person whose rights are affected by the stay order, the learned Trial Court always has jurisdiction to clarify the order passed by it without impleading the said person as a party. 12. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of clarification passed by the learned Trial Court on 09.02.2026, whereby the co- tenant Kailash was permitted to use his property, and it was held that the Court had not passed any order regarding his share, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to call for any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. With the above observations, the present civil writ petition is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /18