SMT. REENA SINGHVI vs RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD

[2026:RJ-JD:53370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6266/2026
CNR: RJHC010261132026 | URN: CW / 11511U / 2026
1. Aidan Singh S/o Shri Kanaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
25-G-11, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
2. Aidan Jakhar S/o Shri Jasaram Jakhar, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 25-G-2, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
3. Kailash Kumar Jain S/o Shri Surajmal Jain, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 25-G-7, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Pralaysankar Joshi S/o Shri Laksmikant Joshi, Aged About
63 Years, R/o 25-G-10 Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Smt Reena Singhvi W/o Jitendra Singhvi, R/o 17-E/686,
Chopasani Housing Board Jodhpur Through Power Of
Attorney Holder Pukhraj S/o Late Shri Parasraj Ji Singhvi
R/o 17-E/686, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
2. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Commissioner,
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Housing (Second), Rajasthan
Housing Board, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur (South) Through
Commissioner, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6627/2025
CNR: RJHC010281432025 | URN: CW / 10918U / 2025
Smt. Reena Singhvi W/o Shri Jitendra Singhvi, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of 17-E-686, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur,
Through Power Of Attorney Holder Praful Bhansali S/o Gautam
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(2 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
Raj Ji Bhansali, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 556, Near
Somani College, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Commissioner,
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Housing (Second), Rajasthan
Housing Board, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
3. Aidan Singh S/o Kanaram Ji, Resident Of 25-G-11,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Aidan Jakhar S/o Jasaram Jakhar, Resident Of 25-G-2,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
5. Kailash Kumar Jain S/o Surajmal Jain, Resident Of 25-G-
7, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
6. Pralaynkar Joshi S/o Lakshmikant Joshi, Resident Of 25-
G-10, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23350/2025
CNR: RJHC011109052025 | URN: CW / 41923U / 2025
1. Nirmal Singhvi S/o Shri Rikabhraj, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of C-7, Geetanjali Society Kopri Village, Thane
(East), Maharashtra, Present Resident Of Plot No. 023,
Arihant Adita, Village Gangana, Jodhpur Through General
Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Prafull Bhansali S/o Sh.
Gautam Bhansali, Aged 34 Years, Plot No. 556, Disha,
Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
2. Smt. Mansi Singhvi W/o Shri Nirmal Singhvi, Aged About
47 Years, Resident Of C-7, Geetanjali Society Kopri
Village, Thane (East), Maharashtra, Present Resident Of
Plot No. 023, Arihant Adita, Village Gangana, Jodhpur
Through General Power Of Attorney Holder Sh. Prafull
Bhansali S/o Sh. Gautam Bhansali, Aged 34 Years, Plot
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(3 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
No. 556, Disha, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Commissioner,
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Housing (Second), Rajasthan
Housing Board, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
3. Aidan Singh S/o Kanaram Ji, Resident Of 25-G-11,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Aidan Jakhar S/o Jasaram Jakhar, Resident Of 25-G-2,
Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
5. Kailash Kumar Jain S/o Surajmal Jain, Resident Of 25-G-
7, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
6. Pralaynkar Joshi S/o Lakshmikant Joshi, Resident Of 25-
G-10, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3579/2026
CNR: RJHC010159052026 | URN: CW / 6560U / 2026
1. Aidan Singh S/o Shri Kanaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
25-G-11, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
2. Aidan Jakhar S/o Shri Jasaram Jakhar, Aged About 52
Years, R/o 25-G-2, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
3. Kailash Kumar Jain S/o Shri Surajmal Jain, Aged About 50
Years, R/o 25-G-7, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
4. Pralayankar Joshi S/o Shri Laksmikant Joshi, Aged About
63 Years, R/o 25-G-10, Chopasani Housing Board,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Nirmal Singhvi S/o Shri Rikabhraj, Aged About 48 Years,
Resident Of C-7, Geetanjali Society Kopri Village, Thane
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(4 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
(East), Maharashtra, Present Resident Of Plot No. 203,
Arihant Adita, Village Gangana, Jodhpur.
2. Smt. Mansi Singhvi W/o Shri Nirmal Singhvi, Aged About
47 Years, Resident Of C-7, Geetanjali Society Kopri
Village, Thane (East), Maharashtra, Present Resident Of
Plot No. 203, Arihant Adita, Village Gangana, Jodhpur.
Both Through Power Of Attorney Holder Shri. Prafull
Bhansali S/o Shri Gautam Bhansali, R/o Plot No. 556,
Disha, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Jodhpur.
3. Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur Through Commissioner,
Rajasthan Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Housing (Second), Rajasthan
Housing Board, Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Mehta
Mr. V.D. Gaur
Mr. Zubin Ahmed
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devesh A. Purohit
Mr. Kailash Chaudhary
Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary
Mr. Mool Singh Panwar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS : 06/08/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED : 06/08/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART : Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/10/2026
BY THE COURT:-
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(5 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
1. The present batch comprises four petitions preferred under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising challenges to
orders passed by the learned Trial Courts in the course of civil
proceedings. Out of these four petitions, two petitions concern the
framing and alteration of issues, whereas the remaining two assail
orders whereby applications seeking impleadment of parties under
Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have been
allowed.
2. Since the petitions involve related procedural questions
arising in the course of civil adjudication, they are being taken up
and considered together for the sake of convenience and to avoid
repetition of the discussion on the common principles governing
the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the individual matters, it
would be apposite to delineate the scope and ambit of the
jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The said provision confers upon the High
Court the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals
within its territorial jurisdiction, subject to the constitutional
exceptions. The power so conferred is essentially supervisory in
nature and is intended to ensure that the subordinate Courts
function within the bounds of their authority and administer justice
in accordance with law.
3.1 The jurisdiction under Article 227 is neither appellate nor
intended to serve as an avenue for routine correction of every
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(6 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
error, whether factual or legal, committed by a subordinate Court.
The High Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to reassess the
material on record or to substitute its own view merely because
another view may also be possible. The exercise of such
jurisdiction is warranted in cases where the subordinate Court has
acted beyond the limits of its jurisdiction, failed to exercise
jurisdiction vested in it, acted in patent disregard of settled legal
principles, or where a manifest failure of justice or grave injustice
is otherwise apparent.
3.2 The power of superintendence, though wide in its amplitude,
is required to be exercised with circumspection and judicial
discipline. Its object is not to impede the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings by unnecessary interference at every
interlocutory stage, but to preserve the integrity of the
adjudicatory process and ensure that the subordinate Courts
discharge their duties within the permissible bounds of law.
Consequently, unless the impugned order discloses a patent
jurisdictional error, perversity or such infirmity as would warrant
supervisory correction, interference under Article 227 ought not to
be undertaken as a matter of course.
3.3 Guided by the aforesaid principles, this Court shall examine
the impugned orders in the respective petitions, keeping in view
the nature of the controversy involved in each matter and the
limited supervisory jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(7 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
4. Now, adverting to the merits of the matters, the two
petitions pertaining to the framing of issues are taken up for
consideration together, followed by the two petitions concerning
the impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC.
(A) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6266/2026 & S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 3579/2026
1. These two writ petitions under Article 227 of the constitution
of India have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners assailing
the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jodhpur in Civil Original Suit
No.39/16 whereby the learned Trial Court has formulated some
new issues and has struck off some of the previous issues.
2. The controversy in the present matters emanates from a suit
for permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiffs. The precise
case set up by the plaintiffs-respondents is that they possess
proprietary rights over the plot in question and are carrying out
construction thereupon after obtaining the requisite permissions
and authorisations from the competent authorities. The relief
sought is to the effect that defendant No. 2 be restrained from
obstructing or interfering with the construction activity being
undertaken by the plaintiffs-respondents in accordance with law.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4. It transpires from the record that, upon completion of the
pleadings, issues were initially framed by the learned Trial Court
on 09.09.2016. Thereafter, in the course of further proceedings,
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(8 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
including subsequent pleadings and applications seeking
impleadment of parties, the matter underwent further
development. Upon consideration of the subsequent developments
and the pleadings available on record, the learned Trial Court, vide
order dated 16.01.2026, framed seven issues, including the issue
relating to relief, and specifically directed that the evidence of the
parties shall be recorded with reference to the issues so framed.
4. At this juncture, it would be apposite to advert to the scope
and ambit of Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, which confers ample authority upon the Court to amend,
strike out or frame additional issues at any stage before passing a
decree, in such manner as may be necessary for determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties. For ready
reference, the relevant provision of Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
ORDER XIV RULE 5 OF CPC- Settlement of Issues and
Determination of Suit on Issues of Law or on Issues agreed
upon.
5. Power to amend and strike out, issues. —(1) The
Court may at any time before passing a decree amend
the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it
thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues
as may be necessary for determining the matters in
controversy between the parties shall be so made or
framed.
(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a
decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be
wrongly framed or introduced.]
4.1 The object underlying the aforesaid provision is to ensure
that the adjudication of a civil dispute does not remain confined to
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(9 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
issues framed at an earlier stage, particularly where subsequent
pleadings, amendments or developments in the proceedings
warrant a reconsideration of the same. The framing of issues is
not an empty procedural formality; rather, it constitutes the very
foundation upon which the parties are required to lead their
evidence and the Court is called upon to adjudicate their
respective rights and liabilities.
4.2 The power vested in the Court under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC
is, therefore, intended to facilitate a just, effective and complete
adjudication of the controversy. If, upon a consideration of the
pleadings and the subsequent course of proceedings, the Court
finds that the issues already framed do not adequately encompass
the questions requiring determination, it is well within its
jurisdiction to amend the existing issues, strike out any issue
which may have become unnecessary, or frame such additional
issues as may be essential for a proper adjudication of the suit.
The provision enables the Court to ensure that the real dispute
between the parties is brought into sharp focus and that the
eventual adjudication is neither rendered incomplete nor
prejudicial to either side merely on account of an earlier
formulation of issues.
4.3 The exercise of such power necessarily involves an
assessment of the pleadings, the nature of the controversy and
the questions which genuinely arise for determination. The
discretion so vested in the Trial Court is required to be exercised
judiciously, with the object of advancing the cause of justice and
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(10 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
not merely to adhere to a procedural arrangement which may
have ceased to be adequate in the changed circumstances of the
case.
5. In the present case, the learned Trial Court, upon
consideration of the pleadings and the subsequent developments
in the proceedings, has considered it appropriate to frame seven
issues vide order dated 16.01.2026 and has directed that the
evidence be recorded on the basis of the issues so framed. The
said exercise falls within the ambit of the powers conferred upon
the Trial Court under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.
5.1 The mere fact that issues had earlier been framed on
09.09.2016 would not, by itself, denude the learned Trial Court of
its statutory authority to revisit the same and formulate issues
which, in its considered opinion, more appropriately capture the
controversy requiring adjudication. The paramount consideration
is whether the issues, as framed, facilitate the effective
determination of the real questions in dispute between the parties.
6. Having regard to the nature of the suit, the subsequent
developments reflected in the record and the statutory power
available to the learned Trial Court, this Court finds no apparent
illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or perversity in the impugned
order warranting interference in the exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction. The learned Trial Court has exercised its discretion in
a matter which falls within its domain, and this Court is not
inclined to substitute its own assessment merely because the
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(11 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
issues had previously been framed at an earlier stage of the
proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the present petitions are dismissed. The learned
Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with law on
the basis of the issues framed vide order dated 16.01.2026.
8. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stands
disposed of.
(B) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6627/2025 & S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 23350/2025
1. The writ petition No. 6627/2025 under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner assailing
the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, District Jodhpur, in Civil
Original Suit No. 39/2016, whereby the application preferred by
the applicants under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, came to be allowed.
1.1 The writ petition No. 23350/2026 under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioners
assailing the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, District
Jodhpur, in Civil Original Suit No. 330/2016, whereby the
application preferred by the applicants under Order I Rule 10 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, came to be allowed.
2. The controversy in the present matters arises out of a suit
for permanent injunction instituted by the plaintiffs-petitioners,
asserting proprietary rights over the suit property and contending
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(12 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
that the requisite permissions for raising construction had been
obtained from the competent authority, namely, the Urban
Improvement Trust (UIT). Apprehending interference and
obstruction at the hands of the defendants, the plaintiffs instituted
the suit seeking an injunction, inter alia, restraining defendant No.
2, the Housing Board, from interfering with the construction
activity being undertaken over the disputed property.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
4. During the pendency of the suit, respondents No. 3 to 6
moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking their impleadment
as parties to the proceedings. The precise case set up by the
applicants is that they are residents of the very same colony and
that the disputed property forms part of, or is connected with, the
approved layout plan of the Housing Board, wherein a public park
is proposed to be developed in Sector 25-G. It is their contention
that, under the garb of seeking an injunction against the Housing
Board, the plaintiffs are, in substance, attempting to secure
control over land earmarked for a public purpose, namely, the
construction of a park, thereby prejudicially affecting the interests
of the residents of the colony at large.
5. For ready reference, the relevant provision of Order I Rule 10
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is reproduced hereinbelow: -
ORDER I RULE 10 OF CPC Parties to Suits -
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(13 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
(2) Court may strike out or add parties.— The Court may
at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such terms as may appear
to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party
improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck
out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been
joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence
before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the
Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle
all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
5.1 Order I Rule 10(2) CPC confers upon the Court the power to
strike out a party who has been improperly impleaded and to add
a person whose presence is necessary for the effective and
complete adjudication of the dispute. The underlying object of the
provision is to ensure that the real controversy between the
parties is adjudicated comprehensively, without leaving material
questions unresolved or giving rise to avoidable multiplicity of
proceedings. The provision contemplates two broad categories of
persons who may be added as parties, first, those who ought to
have been joined for the proper adjudication of the suit; and
second, those whose presence would enable the Court to
effectually and completely determine all the questions involved in
the controversy. However, a mere interest in the subject matter or
a desire to participate in the proceedings does not, by itself,
entitle a person to impleadment. The Court must examine the
nature of the dispute, the relief claimed and the interest asserted
by the proposed party, and determine whether their presence is
required for a just and comprehensive adjudication. In essence,
the provision vests the Court with discretionary power to regulate
the array of parties so that the adjudication is not rendered
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(14 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
incomplete merely because a person whose presence is material
to the controversy was not originally impleaded.
6. In the case at hand, the learned Trial Court, while
considering the application for impleadment, took note of the fact
that the applicants are residents of the same colony and have
asserted an interest in the subject matter on the ground that the
disputed land is connected with the approved layout plan of the
Housing Board and is allegedly earmarked for the development of
a public park. In such circumstances, the presence of the
applicants may assist the learned Trial Court in effectively
examining the controversy concerning the nature and intended
use of the suit property, without expressing any opinion at this
stage on the correctness of the rival claims.
7. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the interest
asserted by the applicants, this Court finds that the learned Trial
Court has exercised its discretion within the permissible bounds of
law while allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The
impleadment of the applicants, by itself, does not confer any
substantive right upon them, nor does it amount to an acceptance
of their allegations regarding the character, ownership or intended
use of the disputed property. All such questions shall remain open
for consideration by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence brought on record, in accordance with law.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find
any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)

(15 of 15)
[2026:RJ-JD:53370] [CW-6266/2026]
orders warranting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. Accordingly, the instant writ petitions are dismissed. The
learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Crt_7 (1763)
D/32
Manisha Kumari
(Uploaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:00:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 05:32:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)