SMT. DEVI Vs. DAYA RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court allowing the impleading of Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 as Defendants, on the allegation that these Respondents were also legal -heirs of Ram Nath original mortgagor.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are that Ram Nath father of Smt. Devi Plaintiff -Petitioner mortgaged the property in dispute to Daya Ram. Ram Nath was not heard of for the last 20 years. His daughter, Smt. Devi filed a suit for redemption of the property against the mortgagee. During the pendency of the said suit, Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 depicting themselves to be the children of aforesaid Ram Nath and widow of Ram Nath filed an application for impleading them as Respondents as Defendants, which was allowed by the trial Court vide impugned order by holding that they are necessary parties.

(3.) THE legal controversy is now well settled that under the provisions of Sub -rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a party can be allowed to be impleaded if it is a necessary party to the suit and that the necessary party is one in the absence of which the controversy in the suit cannot effectively be decided. In the present case, Mst. Devi depicting herself to be the daughter of Ram Nath presumed to be dead, had filed a suit for preemption of the property against Daya Ram, Defendant. Thus, the only controversy between the parties would be whether the Plaintiff is the legal -heir of Ram Nath mortgagor or that he had mortgaged the property is dispute with Daya Ram, mortgagor. Therefore, the impleading of Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 would not be necessary as the controversy can be disposed of in their absence. Certainly, the order of the trial Court in allowing these Respondents to be impleaded as Defendants in this suit on their allegation being legal -heirs of the mortgagor would convert the nature of the suit for redemption to the one for declaration The Plaintiff is the dominus litis, i.e., master of the suit and cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. This view is