Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 14th January, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) Bharatpur dismissed the application of the petitioner -applicant filed under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit against the respondents -defendants challenging the order of termination. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner -applicant filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as party defendant in the suit. The learned trial court, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, did not think the petitioner -applicant to be a necessary or a proper party for adjudication of the suit and thus, dismissed the application. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner -applicant has invoked the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) AT the very outset, it is relevant to record that it is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select adversary from whom he seeks relief and it was not for a Court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not a province of a Court of law to interfere with that right. If a plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the Court to worry about. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed that the petitioner -applicant filed an application under order 1 Rule 10 of CPC stating that the respondent plaintiff had levelled allegation against the petitioner -applicant in the suit and it is the petitioner applicant on whose recommendation only Aanganbadi Karyakartan could be removed, but the learned trial court dismissed the application observing that the respondent -plaintiff had not sought any relief against the petitioner -applicant and further the learned trial court observed that the petitioner -applicant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the facts and circumstances of the case. The finding arrived at by the learned trial court is just and proper, with which I fully concur and to my firm view, the impugned warrants no intervention and thus, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.;