JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 07.04.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, his application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC for impleadment as party defendant has been rejected. 2. A suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by Smt. Saroj and Vinod seeking declaration regarding ownership of suit property based on partition dated 14.06.1967 and declaration regarding sale deeds dated 29.03.2007 and 18.08.2007 being void; the suit was filed claiming right as legal representatives of one Hari Singh; in the plaint it was claimed that Hari Singh was survived by Kishan Singh, Bheem Singh sons and Lata Singh daughter as his legal representatives; one son Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to his uncle i.e. brother of Hari Singh, Bhagwat Singh and another son Man Singh had gone in adoption to his uncle Chain Singh brother of Hari Singh during the life time of Hari Singh and, therefore, both of them (Vijay Singh and Man Singh) had no right in the properties of Hari Singh. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner Rakesh Choudhary son of Vijay Singh filed an application for impleadment as party to the suit; it was claimed that Vijay Singh father of the applicant had not gone in adoption and after death of Hari Singh, he (Vijay Singh) was Karta Khandan; the properties of deceased Hari Singh, which is subject matter of the suit, are properties of Hindu undivided family and all the legal representatives of Hari Singh are entitled to ⅕th share each. 3. 3. A reference was made to the suit filed by Bheem Singh for partition regarding the properties of deceased Hari Singh, pending before the Court of Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur, wherein, the applicant Rakesh Choudhary was impleaded as party and issues regarding partition of the properties belonging to Hari Singh and properties not forming part of the suit and the issue as to whether Vijay Singh and Man Singh had gone in adoption and, therefore, his legal representatives do not have any share in the suit property have also been framed; it was claimed that till the issues framed by the Court at Jaipur are not disposed of, the prayer made in the suit cannot be accepted and if the relief is granted without impleading the applicant as party, the same would result in irreparable injury to him; ultimately, it was prayed that the applicant be impleaded as party. 4. 4. A detailed reply to the application was filed by the plaintiffs opposing the application for impleadment as party; it was, inter alia, submitted that Vijay Singh went in adoption to Bhagwat Singh during the life time of Hari Singh and Vijay Singh succeeded to the properties of Bhagwat Singh and after death of Vijay Singh applicant Rakesh Choudhary along with Jitendra Singh, Anand Singh, Uma and Sudha were in possession and enjoying the properties; it was submitted that the claim made in the plaint regarding Vijay Singh having gone in adoption was correct and made reference to several documents including suit filed in the year 1984 by Lata Singh daughter of Hari Singh for partition, wherein, it was averred that Vijay Singh has gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh; sale deed dated 09.09.1985, whereby, Vijay Singh purchased property at Jodhpur, wherein, his name has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; registered gift deed dated 30.08.1969 executed by Sumitra Devi wife of Hari Singh in favour of Man Singh and Bheem Singh, wherein, also it was indicated that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and that only Kishan Singh, Bheem Singh and Lata were the legal representatives of Hari Singh; registered power of attorney dated 21.07.1976 executed by Vijay Singh in favour of Smt. Saroj Choudhary, wherein, Vijay Singh has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; death certificate of Vijay Singh, wherein, he has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh and information obtained under the Right to Information Act from the State Government with whom Vijay Singh served, wherein, in the service record also Vijay Singh has been indicated as son of Bhagwat Singh; it was claimed that from the documents, it was apparent that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and, therefore, the applicant has no concern with the properties of Hari Singh; with reference to the suit pending at Jaipur it was indicated that filing of the suit does not help the cause of applicant Rakesh Choudhary; ultimately, it was submitted that the applicant was neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and, therefore, the application be dismissed. 5. 5. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that from the documents produced by the defendants, it is apparent that Vijay Singh had gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and the documents produced by the defendants have not been questioned/objected to by the counsel for the applicant and it is not even been the case that the documents are incorrect; merely because in the suit pending at Jaipur a plea has been raised that Vijay Singh was legal heir of Hari Singh and issue has been framed, the applicant cannot be said to be a necessary party, when from the documents produced prima facie it does not appear that Vijay Singh was son of Hari Singh and, consequently, dismissed the application. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed grave error of law in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; it was submitted that the documents produced by the non-applicant could not have been relied on by the trial court for negating the claim of the petitioner; in the partition suit filed at Jaipur, plea regarding the suit property, had also been raised and issue has been framed, which was sufficient for impleadment of the petitioner; it was claimed that father of the applicant used to write Vijay Singh son of Bhagwat Singh as a mark of respect towards his father`s younger brother, who died issueless and, therefore, the admission in the official record does not mean anything; the parties have to prove the pre-condition of adoption as indicated in the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (`the Act'); ultimately, it was prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order passed by the trial court be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner be allowed and he be impleaded as party to the suit. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khachar Bhikhubhai Unadbhai & Ors. v. State of Rujarat & Anr., (1996) 4 SCC 739 and Vidur Impex & Traders Private Limited & Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384 . 8. 7. Reliance was placed on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khachar Bhikhubhai Unadbhai & Ors. v. State of Rujarat & Anr., (1996) 4 SCC 739 and Vidur Impex & Traders Private Limited & Ors. v. Tosh Apartments Private Limited & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 384 . 8. Replying to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application filed by the petitioner and the present writ petition are without any substance and the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner; it was submitted that not only in reply to the application filed by the petitioner before the trial court voluminous evidence regarding Vijay Singh having gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh was produced, but in the present writ petition also, all those documents have been produced in the reply; neither before the trial court nor before this Court the genuineness, validity or authenticity of any of the documents have been denied/questioned; it was submitted that most of the documents are registered instruments executed way back in the years 1969 and 1976, suit was filed in the year 1984; the death certificate of Vijay Singh and the indication in the service record of Vijay Singh conclusively goes to show that Vijay Singh went in adoption to Bhagwat Singh and was always treated as son of Bhagwat Singh and the applicant-petitioner for narrow gains were seeking to dispute the said aspect and were claiming legacy of Hari Singh; besides enjoying the properties, which devolved on them from Bhagwat Singh through Vijay Singh; it was submitted that even in the suit filed by Bheem Singh son of Hari Singh at Jaipur, on which, strong reliance was placed by the petitioner, the petitioner has been impleaded as party only because they were in unauthorized possession of a part of the suit property and their impleadment was specifically indicated in the plaint as for the purpose of seeking their eviction and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any advantage out of the impleadment in the suit at Jaipur; it was submitted that merely because in another suit the petitioner is party and has raised certain unsustainable pleas, he cannot claim that he should be impleaded as a party in the present suit as well, in which, his presence was neither necessary nor proper for adjudication of issues involved in the suit and, therefore, the order passed by the trial court is justified. 9. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 10. From a perusal of the plaint filed by Smt. Saroj and Vinod wife and daughter of Kishan Singh, it is apparent that the suit has been filed questioning the right of Bheem Singh and Smt. Lata Singh both children of Hari Singh in dealing with the suit property by executing sale deed in favour of defendant No. 8 Navratan Kumar based on the fact that the property, which belonged to Hari Singh by way of oral partition fell in share of late Kishan Singh son of Hari Singh; the suit was confined to seeking declaration against Bheem Singh and Smt. Lata Singh qua the properties said to have fallen in share of Kishan Singh and setting aside of sale deed executed in favour of defendant No. 8; the suit at Jaipur filed by Bheem Singh, on which, strong reliance was placed by the petitioner for getting impleaded as party in the suit pertained to the property situated at Hasan Pura Scheme, Jaipur. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos. 7 to 11 in the said suit i.e. the children of late Vijay Singh including the petitioner, besides denying the claim made in the plaint, claimed partition pertaining to all the properties belonging to Hari Singh, wherein, the trial court framed issues pertaining to the additional plea raised by the defendant Nos. 7 to 11 including the petitioner and an additional issue was framed regarding Vijay Singh and Man Singh having gone in adoption and, therefore, not entitled to any share in the properties of Hari Singh; the petitioner, it is interesting to note that, though claimed impleadment on the basis of his right in the properties of Hari Singh on account of he being son of Vijay Singh, did not seek impleadment of other heirs of deceased Vijay Singh in the present suit; the entire basis for claiming impleadment was that Vijay Singh had not gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh as claimed by the plaintiffs and that suit at Jaipur was pending. There is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has been impleaded as party in the suit at Jaipur as a decree for possession by way of eviction of the petitioner among others was sought in the said suit and not as legal representative of deceased Hari Singh and, therefore, when in the written statement plea was raised claiming status as legal representative of Hari Singh and the fact of adoption was denied, it was natural for the trial court at Jaipur to frame issues in this regard; however, when in the present case, the application was filed by the petitioner denying the fact of adoption and the said argument was vehemently opposed by the other parties by way of voluminous prima facie evidence indicating Vijay Singh as son of Bhagwat Singh by way of admissions of Vijay Singh himself and besides the indication in the death certificate as well as several registered documents executed decades earlier, the minimum requirement on part of the petitioner was to either dispute the genuineness of the said documents and/or produce any material indicating to the contrary before the trial court to prima facie raise a triable contention; however, the trial court noticed that no contention in this regard was raised by the petitioner before the trial court; even in the present writ petition, all the documents produced before the trial court have been produced along with the reply, however, no rejoinder to the same was filed by the petitioner and, therefore, apparently the trial court was justified in coming to the conclusion that as Vijay Singh has gone in adoption to Bhagwat Singh, the petitioner cannot be said to be a necessary or proper party to the present suit. 11. In Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Center & Hotels Private Limited & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 417 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "13. 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. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure................ 14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party; (a) any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party, any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. 15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance." 12. In the present case, the last observation of the aforesaid abstracted part of the Supreme Court judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the last observation of the aforesaid abstracted part of the Supreme Court judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner on the basis of his likely to secure a right/interest/finding qua the suit property, after the suit at Jaipur is decided, will not make him necessary or proper party. 13. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the fact that the documents produced by the respondents could not have been looked into at the stage of decision of the application as the same would be required to be proved during the course of trial and that the fact of adoption would be required to be established within the parameters of Section 11 of the Act, suffice it to say that the said aspects apparently do not arise in the present case at the stage of deciding application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC and the petitioner having failed to establish that his presence was necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all the questions involved in the suit, the trial court was justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 14. So far as the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that dismissal of the present application would prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending proceedings at Jaipur, suffice it to mention that the decision on an interlocutory application for prima facie judging the maintainability of the application, by itself cannot prejudice the substantive proceedings and that also in the present case an independent suit pending before a different Court, wherein, the petitioner is already a party. 15. So far as the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, the parameters for impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 CPC are well established, which have been applied by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances of the case before it and have no application to the facts of the present case. 16. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the trial court does not call for any interference by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******