IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9131/2007 (Ghan Shyam Vs. The Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Sikar) Date of order : 19/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri I.R.Saini, for the petitioner. ****** BY THE COURT: This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 2 has been rejected. The plaintiff-respondent No. 2 Mangal Chand and the petitioner Ghanshyam are the real brothers and both are sons of Shri Nanag Ram. Upon the death of Shri Nanag Ram, they claimed share in the agricultural land left by him. The plaintiff filed aforesaid injunction suit against the defendant – respondent No. 8 to 15 claiming an injunction against them that they have no right of passing through the disputed property and use the same as a way. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is also claiming the share in the disputed property therefore, the trial of the suit cannot take place in his absence. It is argued that if eventually injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff, he would cite the same in his suit on the question of title which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sikar. It is argued that the trial Court has not erred in law in permitting the petitioner to be impleaded in the suit. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, I find that the trial Court while considering the scope of the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent observed that in the suit not relief as such has been prayed for against the petitioner and only an injunction has been prayed for against the defendants, which even if allowed, would eventually have no adverse affect on the interest of the petitioner. Neither any declaration as to title is claimed nor otherwise any such declaration is sought which might affect the interest of the petitioner. The learned trial Court observed that issue in regard to the title of the disputed land is already pending before the Court in another suit, which has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent separately against his two brothers for specific performance. In the present case, the petitioner can not be treated as a necessary party. Considering the reasoning given by the learned trial Court, I do not find any error of law in the conclusion that the petitioner is not a necessary party in the suit in question. Obviously, therefore, any outcome of the suit would not adversely affect the interest of the petitioner. I therefore, do not find any error and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. preety Item No.54