[2026:RJ-JP:23891] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9174/2026 URN: CW / 20402U / 2026 Sushil Kumar Bhoot S/o Late Kedar Nath Bhoot, Aged About 70 Years, R/o B-48, Kirti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Krishna Avtar Bhoot S/o Late Kedar Nath Bhoot, Aged About 79 Years, R/o A-33, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Bindu Devi Bhoot W/o Late Surendra Prasad Bhoot, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 33, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 3. Arun Agarwal S/o Late Surendra Prasad Bhoot, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 33, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 4. Amit Agarwal S/o Late Surendra Prasad Bhoot, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 33, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 5. Ankur Agarwal S/o Late Surendra Prasad Bhoot, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 33, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 6. Mahesh Chandra Bhoot S/o Late Kedar Nath Bhoot, Aged About 71 Years, R/o 127, Johari Bazar, Ashoka Textile, Jaipur. 7. Rajendra Prasad Bhoot S/o Late Kedar Nath Bhoot, Aged About 75 Years, R/o A-383, Malviya Nagar, Near Satkar Shooping Centre, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj Mr. Abhishek Saini Ms. Ankita Jangid Ms. Aarti Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Choudhary Mr. Waseem HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 30/06/2026 1. Petitioner is plaintiff and seeks to challenge the order dated 28.04.2026, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, in civil suit 44/2022, titled as Sushil [2026:RJ-JP:23891] (2 of 3) [CW-9174/2026] Kumar Bhoot Vs. Krishna Avtar Bhoot & Ors., allowing application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC, filed by respondent No.7 and directing the petitioner to implead the applicant as party defendant No.7 in the present civil Suit for partition. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7, perused the impugned order, plaint record and material available on record. 3. Indisputably, petitioner filed a civil suit for partition of immovable property bearing house No.A-33, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, against his brother Krishna Avatar, Mahesh Chand and surviving successors of deceased brother Surendra Prasad. Petitioner pleaded in the para no.3 plaint that such property was purchased via registered sale deed dated 05.01.1977 in their joint name and the property is liable to be partitioned among the joint purchasers by metes and bounds. 4. Indisputably, respondent No.7, is also brother of petitioner but was not made party in the partition suit. In that eventuality he move an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, stating inter alia that indeed the house property was purchased by the funds incurred by their father Shri Krishna Avatar Bhoot, and after death of his father, he has also vested right and title therein as much as he has =physical possession over one room in the house. 5. This application was contested by petitioner. 6. Learned Trial Court after considering the pleadings of parties and their respective contentions, allowed the application vide impugned order dated 28.04.2026. Learned Trial Court considered that at the time of purchase of house property through sale deed dated 05.01.1977, father of purchasers was alive. Learned Trial [2026:RJ-JP:23891] (3 of 3) [CW-9174/2026] Court considered that the respondent No.7 being son was also residing in the suit property. Learned Trial Court considered that father of parties passed away on 04.06.2019 and considering the plea put forth by the respondent No.7, he was considered necessary or at least proper party to be heard in the present suit for partition. Learned Trial Court found that as per provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, court has power and jurisdiction to implead any person as party to the suit whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication of the suit. 7. Having gone through the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order, this Court does not find any reason to grant indulgence therein in exercise of power under Article 227 of the constitution of India. In addition this court finds that allowing to add the respondent No.7 as party defendant would neither change the nature of suit nor lead to any miscarriage of justice rather in his presence, the issue of partition of the immovable property can be adjudicated completely and effectively. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 2/AMAN