- (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and aside the order dated 29th March, 2012, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC.
(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is revealed that one respondent-plaintiff no.2 Kailash Kumawat filed a suit for permanent injunction and partition in the court of District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which came to be transferred to the Additional District Judge, No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. It is further revealed that the petitioner Ramswaroop Yadav purchased a piece of land out of Hindu Undivided Family Property bearing khasra No. 715/3/2/2 from the respondent no.3 Shankar lal. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC imploring to implead him as a necessary party in the suit. It was averred by the petitioner that the respondent defendant no.3 Shankar lal, despite being given ample opportunity to file the written statement of defence, did not file the same and resultantly the court closed the right to file the written statement of defence and proceeded ex-parte against him. It is also noticed that during the pendency of this suit, the petitioner filed a separate suit independently for specific performance of contract in the court. The petitioner Ramswaroop Yadav has come with a case that he is a necessary party in the suit filed by Kailash Kumawat and thus, he is required to be impleaded as a party defendant for the just decision of the case. The learned trial court is found to have dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner-applicant had already filed a separate suit for specific performance of contract, which was pending in the court and whatever the relief he wanted to seek in the instant suit, could seek in his own suit with regard to the property in question. In the case of Kasturi Versus Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 733, the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus: "A bare reading of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person, who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party." 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. In view of above, I do not find any perversity or caprice in the impugned order and the same is found to be just and proper, which justifies no interference and thus, the writ petition being devoid of any substance deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine.
(3.) CONSEQUENT upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.;