- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Sharad Sharma, holding brief of Sri H. N. Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1.
(2.) THIS revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, read with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, as amended by the State of U. P. is directed against the order dated 1st January, 1991 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, exercising power of the Judge Small Causes in Small Cause Case No. 7 of 1989 between Saiyed Raza and Ansar Ahmad and others, whereby the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded as defendant in the suit has been rejected. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has instituted a suit against the defendant-opposite parties No. 2 and 3 for their ejectment from the disputed house. The suit is founded on the alleged contract of tenancy. The appli cant moved an application for being impleaded as defendant claiming that he was a necessary party inasmuch as he was in occupation of the disputed house in the capacity of a tenant in pursuance of certain alleged agreement of tenancy between him and the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, and the decree in the suit was likely to affect him. The court below rejected the applicant's application for impleadment on the ground that his interest shall in no way be affected by any decree in the suit if he was a tenant in the disputed house in his own rights. In rejecting application of the applicant the court below also took into considera tion the fact that the alleged agreement of tenancy, for a consideration of a sum of Rs. 3,000 was not registered one.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the applicant, at length and in detail, and giving its anxious consideration the court is of the opinion that the considerations on which the court below rejected the application of the applicant for being impleaded in the suit are substantially material relevant and in conformity with law. It is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis having dominion over his suit. He has a right and prerogative to choose and implead in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief. He is not obliged to implead a person, as defendant in the suit, against whom no relief is sought. It cannot be gainsaid that no decree in a suit can bind a person if he is not a party thereto or duly represented therein. In the suit giving rise to this revision, admittedly, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has claimed no relief against the applicant. The contention of the applicant that the decree in the suit shall affect his tenancy right in the disputed house is untenable. In execution of the decree of ejectment against the defendant-opposite parties No. 2 and 1 the applicant cannot be evicted from the house in dispute if he has got any independent tenancy right therein, as alleged. He will have a right to resist execution of the decree, if any, to protect his possession, based on his own independent right as tenant of plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 in the disputed house inviting investigation of his right to possession under the provisions of Rules 97 and 98 of Order XXI of the Code. Even if the applicant is, some how, illegally dispossessed from the disputed house, he will have a remedy under Rules 99 and 100 of Order XXI of the Code.;