RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 29.1.2011, Annexure P3, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, vide which learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by petitionerapplicant under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as `the Code') for impleading him as a party in the suit.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of ejectment and for recovery of rent was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against respondent no.2-defendant on the brief allegations that respondent no.1 is owner of shop in dispute by way of purchase from previous owner Sh.S.K.Gupta and that the same was rented out to respondent no.2 on monthly rent of Rs.8,400/- vide agreement dated 1.4.2003 and that tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 11.9.2006. Suit was contested by respondent no.2 by filing written statement. During pendency of the said suit, the present application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code was filed by present petitioner-applicant for impleading him as a party in the suit by taking the plea that he alongwith respondent no.2 was a co-tenant in the premises in dispute under previous owner Sh.S.K.Gupta and hence, he is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case. The application was contested by respondent-plaintiff and hence, the same was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing as under:- "By way of the present suit, the plaintiff is seeking decree of possession by way of ejectment of defendant who is admittedly the tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has placed reliance on rent agreement dated 1.4.2003. Perusal of the same reveals that the same was executed between plaintiff Sushila and defendant Anita and the present applicant was not party to the said agreement. Moreover, the defendant has failed to show any of the rent agreement in which the present applicant was also a tenant with the plaintiff over the suit property. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on receipt Mark 1 to Mark 13. However, these receipts have not been proved and they also do not reflect that they were issued for the purposes of payment of rent as regards the present suit property. Moreover the plaintiff is dominus litus and he has right to implead proper party. The present applicant cannot be directed to become a party in the suit as no relief against the present applicant is claimed by the plaintiff. Moreover, it has also not been shown by the applicant that he is necessary party to the present suit. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following authority:- Smt.Meera Rani and Ors. v. Ghanshyam Sharma 2008 (2) CCC 751 (MP); Ranbir Singh v. Ran Singh 2006(3) CCC 45 (P&H). Ld.counsel for applicant has also relied upon Krishan Lal and another v. Sudesh Kumari 1998(1) PLR 514(i) (P&H) to support his contention. There is no dispute as regards the authority of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Civil Revision No.1496 of 2011(O&M) -3- Court, however, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is hereby dismissed."
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that rule of dominus litus is not an absolute rule and that the present petitioner being co-tenant with respondent no.2 under previous owner is a necessary party to be impleaded in this case. He has also placed reliance upon judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt.Vidya Devi v. Shruti Choudhry and others, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 751, wherein on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it was observed as under:- "11. Considering the aforesaid facts, where Smt. Kiran Chaudhary is the only one who has not been impleaded as party to the suit filed for claiming inheritance to the property left by late Ch. Bansi Lal and late Ch. Surender Singh and also the fact that in the counter claim filed by the petitionerdefendant No. 6, relief has been sought not only against respondent No.1- plaintiff but also Smt. Kiran Chaudhary, her mother. Further nothing having been shown as to in what manner Smt. Kiran Chaudhary will be prejudiced in case she is also impleaded as party in the litigation for the decision of the lis, in my opinion, she would be proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. Still further, the plaintiff is a dominus litus in the suit filed by her and not absolute rule. Reference to a judgment of this Court in Gram Panchayat Garhi v. Dharambir and others, 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 98 : AIR 1998 P&H 165 may also be appropriate at this stage, wherein it was opined that the plaintiff is dominus litus of the suit is not an absolute rule. The law intends and has actually provided for exceptions. One of the tests is that by impleading a party, the lis can be adjudicated upon effectively and completely. The relevant passage therefrom is extracted below: " The Code of Civil Procedure provides as to how a suit has to be instituted and how would it end. The Code provides thread of continuity, which would regulate various stages of the suit. In other words, the intention of the legislation must and has to be gathered from the various provisions of the Code read collectively and in conjunction with each other. Whereas O. 1, Rules. 1 and 3 of the Code provides who are the persons who would be joined as plaintiffs and/or defendants. Rule 10 gives power to the Court to add parties and Rule 8-A gives right to a party to approach the Court for being impleaded as a party, if the applicant has an interest in any question which directly and substantially arise in the suit. The provisions regulating impleadment of necessary and proper parties, whose presence is necessary before the court for proper and final adjudication must be construed in a wider perspective as the provisions of Order 2, Rule 1 of the Code clearly indicate that every suit, as far as practicable, be framed so as to afford grounds for final decision upon the subjects in disputes and to prevent further litigation concerning them. To hold that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation in regard to the same subject matter is not even relevant factor while considering the application for impleadment, to my mind, would be an approach not in line with the spirit of the procedural law.;