[2026:RJ-JP:1029] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 450/2026 Minor Rihan Khan Adopted S/o Jumma, Aged About 14 Years, Through Natural Guardian Mursida W/o Mohd. Tofik, R/o Baded, Tehsil Punhana, District Nuh, Haryana ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus 1. Nasru S/o Ummed, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Chinwada, Tehsil Pahadi, District Deeg (Raj.) ---Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Umar Mohammad S/o Naval Khan, R/o Village Chinawada, Tehsil Pahadi, District Deeg (Raj.) 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Representative District Collector Deeg 4. Tehsildar And Sub-Registrar, Tehsil Office Pahadi, District Deeg (Raj.) ---Proforma-Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 12/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge No.1, Kama, District Deeg. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner in a suit for injunction, instituted by the plaintiff against the proforma respondents–defendants, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the applicant–petitioner is a necessary party to the suit for injunction and, therefore, the learned Trial Court committed illegality in rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. He further [2026:RJ-JP:1029] (2 of 3) [CW-450/2026] submits that the petitioner, being the adopted son of one Jumma, has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and is thus a necessary party. 3. Heard and perused the material available on record. 4. This Court finds that the suit is simpliciter for injunction against the defendants. It is well settled position of law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be compelled to contest the suit against any particular person or make any third person a party to the suit against his wish. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of Nak Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tarun Keshrichand Shah and 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 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.” [2026:RJ-JP:1029] (3 of 3) [CW-450/2026] 6. In view of the settled legal position, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 13.11.2025. 7. However, it is made clear that any decree passed in the suit shall not be binding upon the present applicant. 8. With the above observations, the present civil misc. writ petition stands disposed of. 9. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J Sudha/15