- (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. 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. 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. 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. 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-Registar dated 07.10.2011 are not correct, being contrary to letter of CBI dated 10.01.2006(Annexure-R/2).
(3.) 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. 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 Vs. Regency Convention Centre And Hotels Private Limited And Ohters, (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........." 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. ;