JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the Single Bench, whereby Counsel for petitioners has been directed to implead Central Bureau of Investigation as party respondent in the writ petition. 3. The petitioners/appellants filed the writ petition before the Single Bench with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 07.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 5, Sub Registrar, Bhiwadi in respect of registration of sale deed relating to land bearing Khasra No. 743 measuring 0.19 Hectare, situated in Village Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar. 4. The respondents filed their preliminary objection/reply to writ petition, wherein it was stated that litigation relates to sale of Khasra No. 743 in the revenue record. They have also annexed Annexure-R/2 with their reply i.e. letter dated 10.01.2006, written by the Central Bureau of Investigation to the District Registrar, Alwar with a request that property bearing Survey No. 500 to 700 in Village Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan may not be allowed to be disposed off in any manner without prior information to this Office i.e. Office of CBI, so that the process of attachment of property under Section 83 Cr.P.C. in respect of Shri Kalashpati Kedia may not be hindered. 5. The Single Bench, on the basis of Annexure-R/2, directed the petitioners to implead Central Bureau of Investigation as party-respondent in the writ petition vide order dated 14.02.2012, which is impugned in this special appeal. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for appellants is that from Annexure-R/2 itself, it is clear that CBI directed the District Registrar not to allow to dispose off the immovable property i.e. agricultural land bearing Survey No. 500 to 700 in Village Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, whereas transaction in dispute was only in respect of Khasra No. 743, measuring 0.19 Hectare, for which no request was made by the CBI to District Registrar, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of Sub Registrar to defer the registration of the sale deed, presented by the petitioners. He submitted that contents of order of Sub-Register dated 07.10.2011 are not correct, being contrary to letter of CBI dated 10.01.2006(Annexure-R/2). 7. He submitted that contents of order of Sub-Register dated 07.10.2011 are not correct, being contrary to letter of CBI dated 10.01.2006(Annexure-R/2). 7. It is further submitted that as per Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1955), Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse or defer the registration of document on any such grounds, as mentioned in the Rule. 8. It is further stated that appellants could not have been compelled to implead any person as party in the writ petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for appellants relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And Others, (2010) 7 SCC 417 , wherein, in para 13, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:- "The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff........." 9. Learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order, however, on the basis of Annexure-R/2, appended with the reply/preliminary objections, filed by the respondents before the Single Bench, it was contended that land in question bearing Khasra No. 743 is not covered by Annexure-R/2, the letter dated 10.01.2006. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and other documents, placed on record. 11. So far as judgment in Mumbai International Airport(supra), relied upon by appellants is concerned, there is no dispute so far as principle of law is concerned, but in addition to it, the Court concerned has got even suo moto power, without any application of any party, to implead any person as party if the facts and circumstances of the case so requires. The question for consideration is as to whether CBI was necessary or proper party, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The question for consideration is as to whether CBI was necessary or proper party, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. From the impugned order passed by the Single Bench, it is clear that CBI has been ordered to be impleaded as party in the writ petition on the basis of letter dated 10.01.2006 (Annexure-R/2). 13. From Exhibit- "C", i.e. part of Annexure-3, at page 68 of the paper book, it is clear that Nayab Tehsildar informed the CBI about the land owned by the Company, wherein land bearing Khasra No. 743 was not included. 14. From Annexure-R/2 also, it is clear that land bearing Khasra No. 743 in Village Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar has not been included. 15. From Annexure-14, copy of sale deed, it is clear that transaction was only in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 743, and not for other land included in letter dated 10.01.2006(Annexure-R/2). Since there was no request by CBI in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 743 in the letter dated 10.01.2006, therefore, CBI was neither necessary nor proper party, therefore, there was no need to implead the CBI as party in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. It is also relevant to mention that Rule 39 of the Rules of 1955, specifically makes it clear that Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration. Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Registration Rules, 1955 is reproduced as under:- "39. Registering Officers not concerned with validity of documents.-Registering Officers should bear in mind that they are in no way concerned with the validity of documents brought to them for registration and that it would be wrong for them to refuse to register on any such grounds as under:- (1) that the executant was dealing with property not belonging to him: [Provided that the registering officer shall not register the document unless he is satisfied himself that the property does not belong to the Government or any local body.] (2) that the instrument infringed the rights of third persons not parties to the transaction; (3) that the transaction was fraudulent. (4) that the executant had not agreed to certain conditions of the document; (5) that the executant was not acquainted with the conditions of the document; (6) that the executant declared that he had been deceived into executing; and (7) that the executant is blind and cannot count." 17. The document in question has not been refused to be registered on the basis of Rule 39, but it has not been registered only on the basis of letter of CBI. The letter of CBI has been placed on record by the respondents as Annexure-R/2, wherein Khasra No. 743 has not been included. 18. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no need to implead CBI as party in the writ petition. 19. Consequently, the intra Court appeal is allowed. Impugned order of the Single Bench dated 14.02.2012, directing the petitioners to implead Central Bureau of Investigation as party respondent in the writ petition, is set aside. 20. The stay application also stands disposed off. 21. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed. *******