Bombay High Court
RAJESH VASANTRAO JOSHIversusRAHULL DYANDEO SUKTE AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The trial court was correct in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment; the plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajesh Vasantrao Joshi, challenged a order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, which had rejected his application to be impleaded as a defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 346 of 2025 filed by Rahull Dyandeo Sukte. The respondent‑plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale deeds in his favour were illegal, null and void, and a perpetual injunction, claiming ownership based on a registered sale deed executed with the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the sale deed was obtained fraudulently and that he remained the original owner, seeking to intervene in the suit. The High Court observed that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, was not seeking any relief against the petitioner and therefore the petitioner could not be compelled to be impleaded; the petitioner could instead file a separate suit to challenge the deed. Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be impleaded as a defendant in the special civil suit despite not being a party to the reliefs claimed.
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment.
- Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy to challenge the validity of the sale deed.
Subjects
- impleadment
- civil procedure
- sale deed
- declaration
- injunction
- dominus litis
- writ petition
- special civil suit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23762
926-wp-5997-2026.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5997 OF 2026
Rajesh Vasantrao Joshi
VERSUS
Rahull Dyandeo Sukte And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Murkute J.M.
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sunny S. Khivansara (through
V.C.)
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : JUNE 17, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 15.04.2026 passed
below Exhibit-47 by Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad in
Special Civil Suit No.346 of 2025, whereby petitioner’s application
seeking impleadment as defendant came to be rejected.
2. Respondent no.1 instituted Special Civil Suit No.346 of
2025 seeking relief of declaration that sale deeds of defendants are
illegal, null and void and also relief of perpetual injunction against
them. The respondent/plaintiff claims that he purchased suit
property under registered sale deed from petitioner. The copy of sale
deed is placed on record. The petitioner sought impleadment in suit
on the ground that he is original owner of property and plaintiff has
fraudulently obtained sale deed which does not create title in his
favour in respect of suit property.
926-wp-5997-2026.odt
(2)
3. Perusal of pleadings in suit shows that plaintiff claims
himself to be owner on the basis of registered sale deed. The
petitioner has not challenged said sale deed by filing any independent
suit. As long as sale deed in favour of plaintiff exist, he has right to
protect his interest over suit property on the basis of title. If
petitioner wants to challenge validity of sale deed of
respondent/plaintiff, he can file independent suit seeking declaration
against sale deed. However, looking to nature of pleadings and reliefs
claimed against defendant in suit, impleadment of plaintiff was
absolutely uncalled for. The Trial Court has rightly observed that
plaintiff is dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to implead
petitioner as defendant in suit when he is not seeking any relief. If
petitioner has independent right over suit property, he can resort to
appropriate remedy as permissible under law without impeded by
impugned order.
4. In that view of matter, writ petition stands rejected.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…