SUMAT KUMAR JAIN Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE genesis of the controversy in this revision relates to the order dated July 3, 1997, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4 Jaipur City whereby the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) IT is well settled that the plaintiff being dominus litus can not be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) is applicable to two classes of cases only. One class is where he ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or a defendant and is not so joined. That is a case of necessary party. The other class is where without the presence the questions in the suit can not be effectually and completely decided. The court has no power to join as a party who claims to belong to this class unless it is prima facie satisfied about the plausibility of his claim. Rule 10 (2) can not be read as requiring all persons who choose to lay claim to any sort of right, title or interest in respect of subject of a suit to be made a party.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully scrutinised the record.