Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner - -plaintiff Gurudwara Sadh Sangat against the order dt. 15.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Jaisalmer in civil suit No. 9/2011 -Gurudwara Sadh Sangat vs. Brahmin Sunar Samaj Jaisalmer whereby the learned trial Court impleaded one Bhagwan Das as defendant No. 2 besides defendant No. 1 Brahmin Sunar Samaj Jaisalmer through its President Sh. Kishan Lal. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Manish Patel vehemently relying upon following two judgments submitted that the plaintiff was free to choose the defendants against whom he prayed for some relief in the suit and on the principle of dominus litis, the present defendant No. 2 Bhagwan Das against whom no relief is claimed in the present suit, cannot be impleaded. He further drew the attention of the Court towards previous order of the trial Court dt. 13.9.2011 (Annex. 5) whereby the similar application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. filed by the same defendant No. 2 Bhagwan Das seeking substitution in place of Kishan Lal as President of Brahmin Sunar Samaj was rejected by the learned trial Court and therefore, the present impugned order dt. 15.12.2011 could not be passed allowing such application. He relied upon the following two judgments. 1996 (3) RLW 364 - -Vishan Devi vs. Nagarpalika Mandal, Dholpur. : 1992 (1) CCC 594 - -Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Arvind Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of passing of previous order itself on 13.9.2011, the learned trial Court had given liberty to the said defendant No. 2 -Bhagwan Das to seek impleadment in his personal capacity since there was some election dispute between the defendant No. 2 Bhagwan Das and President Sh. Kishan Lal, who had been removed from the office of President of Brahmin Sunar Samaj, Jaisalmer and therefore, upon authority given in favour of said defendant No. 2 Bhagwan Das, he filed a fresh application for impleadment and that was rightly allowed by the learned trial Court and therefore, the said interlocutory order does not require any interference in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having heard the learned counsels and in view of the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and in view of back ground and previous order dt. 13.9.2011, the learned trial Court has given appropriate reasons that the defendant No. 2 upon fresh authorization by the defendant Brahmin Sunar Samaj authorizing Bhagwan Das to contest the said suit filed by the plaintiff and therefore, his impleadment would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. Such interlocutory order passed in fair exercise of jurisdiction and discretion vested in the learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court in the extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and the learned Court below forthwith.;