- (1.) THE plaintiff revisionists have preferred this revision against the judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the court of first instance in Original Suit No. 729 of 2005 Ravindra Giri Goswami and another Vs. Sri Daraganj Ram Leela Committee and another rejecting the application paper no. 56-A for the impleadment of respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (IInd Set) in the revision. The plaintiff revisionists instituted the above suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants in respect of the property no. 912/566 Daraganj, Pargana and Tehsil- Sadar, Allahabad city having area of 500 sq. yards more particularly described by the boundaries in the plaint on the allegation that the aforesaid property was in the shape of a house belonging to Rai Radha Raman Agrawal which ultimately devolved upon Durgesh Agrawal from whom it was purchased by them vide sale deed dated 10th February 2005. The house was initially numbered as house no. 614 thereafter as 495, 566 and presently 912/566 and that it has fallen down. The defendants-respondents (Ist Set) have no concern with the said property and even Ram Leela functions organized by the them are held at a site opposite to the Alop Shankari Temple which is different from the property in question. However, defendants-respondents no. 1 and 2 (Ist set) have lately started threatening to dis-mental the boundary wall of the aforesaid property so as to grab the same by forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff revisionists.
(2.) THUS , a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 was claimed restraining defendants-respondents no. 1 and 2 (Ist Set) from dismentaling the boundary wall of the aforesaid house and from evicting the plaintiff revisionists from the same. In the aforesaid suit respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (IInd set) namely Bhagwati Prasad Saxena, Bhuneshwari Prasad Saxena and Gyatri Prasad Saxena moved an application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 28.9.2005 praying that they may also be impleaded as defendants to the suit. They claimed themselves to be necessary parties as the property in dispute was said to be part of araji no. 103 village-Alipatti, Tehsil-Sadar, District Allahabad which the plaintiffs revisionists have wrongly described as house no. 912/566. The entire land of the aforesaid araji no.103 was the property of their ancestors which have devolved upon them. The plaintiff revisionists or even their predecessors described in the suit never had any concern with it. The plaintiff revisionists through the above suit wants to claim title over the above property. The aforesaid application was opposed by the plaintiff revisionists by filing objections primarily on the allegation that it has been moved in order to delay the disposal of the suit. They are not the necessary and proper party entitle to be impleaded as the plaintiff revisionists are not claiming any relief against them. The court below allowed the above application and directed for impleadment of the respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (IInd set) in the suit by holding that without impleading them it would not be possible to effectively adjudicate the suit as such they are necessary parties and their non impleadment would give rise to multiplicity of proceedings. The revision was listed before me as tied up on being nominated by the Hon. Chief Justice vide order dated 27.9.2010. I have heard Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionists and Sri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (II Set). None appeared for respondents no. 1 and 2 (Ist Set). Office report indicates that the notice sent to respondent no. 1 was received by its president and service upon respondent no. 2 was done by affixation. Learned counsel for the parties had agreed for final disposal of the revision at the admission stage in the absence of respondents no. 1 and 2 ((Ist Set). It is admitted to learned counsel for both the contesting parties that the respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (II Set) have in the meantime filed original suit no. 1075 of 2006 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 10.2.2005 on the basis of which the plaintiff revisionists are claiming title over the property in question. The said suit is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Allahabad in a court of concurrent jurisdiction. The only argument of Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff revisionists is that in a suit plaintiff is dominus litis and it is for him to decide against whom he wants to institute suit and claim relief. He can not be compelled to array a person against whom he does not want to seek any relief.
(3.) SRI B.B. Paul, learned counsel for respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (II Set) has countered the above argument by submitting that in a suit for permanent injunction the question of title in a property is inherent and therefore if the suit is decreed in the absence of the respondents no. 3,4 and 5 (II Set), it will adversely affect their rights in the said property. Plaintiff is the master of the suit. He is dominus litis. He has to choose the relief he wants to claim and the person against whom he wishes to claim the relief. He can not be forced to sue a particular person and to claim against him, if he has no complaint against such a person. Consequently, the general rule is, a person not a party to a suit has no right to get himself impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. Rule 10 (2) of Order 1 CPC provides for adding and striking of the name of any person whose presence may be necessary before the court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle all questions involved in the suit either upon or without the application of either party. In view of the above rule any person who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant but has not been so added; or whose presence before the court is considered necessary to enable the court to pronounce the judgment effectively and completely, may be added as a party. If a person is not found to be necessary or proper party, the court has no jurisdiction even under the above rule to direct for adding such a party in the suit against wishes of the plaintiff. The right to add or strike a party from a suit under the above rule can be exercised on an application of either of the parties to the suit. The court can also exercise the above authority suo-motu. A distinction however, has to be made between an application for impleadment made by party to the suit and an application made on behalf of a non party. Where an application for impleadment is made by the plaintiff, subject to limitation, bonafides etc., normally such an application is allowed, if the court is of the view that the party sought to be added is a necessary or a proper party, as the plaintiff is dominus litis. However, if an application seeking impleadment is made by a non party, even if the court finds such a party to be necessary or proper, it may dismiss the application for the reason the court may not want to widen the scope of the litigation or for the reason that in the absence of a necessary party, the suit itself may fail. This is dependent upon the judicial discretion of the court.;