JOSHI, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Abu Road passed in the "m/s Chaganlal Munnalal and Anr. vs. Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited" (1), (in short hereinafter referred as RIICO"), by which the trial court accepted the application dated 3. 2. 99 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C. P. C. by the Legal Manager, Madhav Nagrik Shahkari Bank Ltd. , Abu Road.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. R. R. Nagori and Mr. B. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the non-petitioners. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Madhav Nagrik Shahkari Bank Ltd. is neither necessary nor a proper party in the suit and the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in impleading the bank as defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners. It was further argued that firm M/s Chaganmal Munnalal was a registered firm and its registration number with the Registrar of Firms was 1366/85. The firm came in existence on 3. 4. 85. Sagarmal applied RIICO for allotment of residential plot and for that purpose, he deposited a sum of Rs. 10,800/- on 24. 8. 96 with it. At that time Sagarmal was partner of the firm M/s Chaganmal Munnalal. The firm was dissolved on 14. 10. 1996. Thereafter, a notice was issued by RIICO for depositing the whole of the amount of the plot. The said firm was dissolved on 3. 2. 1997 as per the remark given by the Registrar of Firms. Thereafter, on 27. 2. 1997, a sum of Rs. 1,03,050 was deposited by firm M/s Chaganlal Munnalal - plaintiff No. 2, through purchase of a draft. RIICO wanted to allot the plot only to the firm and not to an individual, therefore, a demand was made by the defendants for refund of the said amount. On failure, a suit to realise the above amount was filed against the RIICO. By the order impugned, the application filed by Madhav Nagrik Shahkari Bank Ltd. for impleading it as party-respondent in the suit was accepted by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaintiff is the dominus litis in the case and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not claim any relief. According to his argument, incidental effect of the decision of the suit can be no ground to make the bank defendant in the case. No. relief has been claimed by the plaintiff against the bank. It is absolute choice of the plaintiff, whom he impleads as a defendant in the case. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention and submitted that the order of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside:- (1) Ramnaraian vs. Nandlal (1) (2) Girdharilial vs. Nagar Parishad (2) (3) Fateh Raj vs. Suraj Roop (3) (4) Mazhar Hussain vs. Shai Mohammed & Ors. (4) (5) Nijamuddin vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (5) (6) Gonsala De Filomena Luis vs. Inacio Piedade Hildeberte Fernandes and others (6) (7) Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad vs. Panna Lal Ram Richhpal Oswal and Ors. (7) (8) Firm of Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills & Ors. vs. Chennimalai Goundar (8) (9) Ajmerra Housing Corporation vs. Amrit M. Patel (Dead) through LRs and Ors. (9) (10) Lakshmi Narain vs. The District Judge, Fatehpur & Ors. (10) Per contra, Mr. B. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the non- petitioner submitted that the bank would be incidentally effected by the result of the suit. According to him, as per Sections 117 and 118 of Cooperative Societies Act, the bank is entitled to release the loan advanced to Narbada Dal Mill. The firm took loan to the tune of Rs. 21,23,000/- on 1. 7. 1997. The said application to implead as a defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of C. P. C. was submitted by the bank on 3. 2. 99. The learned counsel further argued that there is a collusion between the parties, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order. It was further argued that there is a charge on the said property and therefore, in this view of the matter also, the bank is entitled to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. The loan was taken by the firm Narbada Dal Mill and at that time, plaintiffs No. 2 and defendant No. 3 in the suit were partners. It was not stated by them that they are not the partners of the firm when they took loan showing themselves as partners of the firm. He has further argued that urregistered firm can take loan and the said loan was deposited with the RIICO by Narbada Dal Mill and award has been passed on 10. 6. 2000 against plaintiff and therefore, the bank is a necessary party. Controverting the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the loan was advanced to Narbada Dal Mill after its dissolution. As stated above, the said firm was dissolved on 3. 2. 97 and the loan was advanced on 1. 7. 97, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed error in impleading the bank as defendant. The said loan was advanced to Munnalal Asha Devi and not to Sagarmal and Munnalal. No argument was made in the trial Court regarding the said charge and the plaintiffs were not party to the said claim or any award alleged to have been passed against them and no document was produced in the trial court. Therefore, Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the revision petition is liable to be accepted and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
(3.) ORDER 1 Rule 10 CPC, so far as it is relevant is as under:- " (2) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so as to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. " Sub-rule (2) provides for the addition of (1) necessary parties and (2) of proper parties. Necessary parties are parties "who ought to have been joined," that is, parties necessary to the constitution of the suit without whom no decree at all can be passed (i ). "in order that a party may be considered a necessary party defendant, two conditions must be satisfied, first, that there must be right to some relief against him in respect of the matter involved in the suit, and second, that his presence should be necessary in order to enable the Court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. " It is correct that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not claim any relief. It is for him to decide the forum where the suit is to be instituted and the parties to be impleaded. A party cannot be thrust on an unwilling plaintiff, unless otherwise provided by law. It is also true that principle of dominus litis must not over stretched. Additional of parties is a matter of discretion to be exercised judiciously and its object is to prevent multiplicity and conflict of decisions. One of the test to determine necessary party is that whether the party to be impleaded would be bound by the result of the action. It is also to be considered whether the presence is necessary for complete and final decision in the question involved in the suit. Impleading the third party involving de novo trial should not normally be allowed. Likewise, parties cannot be added so as to introduce quite new cause of action. A third party claiming title independently of the plaintiff to the plaintiff in suit cannot be joined as a co-plaintiff. There must be some direct and subsisting legal interest and not a equitable interest before a party is impleaded. ;