Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed against the order dt. 17.01.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 114/2004 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment in a suit for possession and permanent injunction filed by one Rajendra S/o. Chhote Lal against Jagdish Prasad. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dt. 17.01.2007, passed by the trial Court.
(2.) THE learned trial Court has dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on count of the fact that no relief in the plaintiff's suit for possession and permanent injunction had been claimed against Narain Lal Atal, petitioner herein, seeking impleadment before the trial Court. The trial Court also rightly held that in the event of a decree even being obtained by the plaintiff in the suit before it would not be binding on Narain Lal Atal as he was not a party in the suit. Further that in any event if Narain Lal Atal had any right to agitate in respect of the suit property he was free to take his proceedings before a competent Court in accordance with law. According to the learned trial Court, in the event of Narain Lal's impleadment in the plaintiff's suit for possession and permanent injunction were to be allowed, the very nature of the suit would stand transformed and the suit would inter alia entail determination of the title between the plaintiff on the one hand and the petitioner -applicant on the other. A direction by the trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is in the nature of its discretion, no doubt exercised on judicially valid ground. The reasons set out by the learned trial Court in dismissing the petitioner's application for impleadment under its order dt. 17.01.2007 are to say the least detailed and well considered. Nothing erroneous can be found therewith. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the petitioner -applicant could not be allowed to inter -mingle in the plaintiff's suit more so when no relief as against the petitioner -applicant was claimed by the plaintiff and that in any event even if a decree as sought by the plaintiff in the suit were to be granted it would not be binding on the petitioner -applicant as he was not a party therein. In my considered opinion, the right of the petitioner -applicant, if any, qua the suit property as claimed by him stands protected by the observations of the learned trial Court while dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.
(3.) THE plaintiff in a suit is the dominus litus and it is for him to implead a party against which he seeks to litigate and claim relief. It is not in the domain of a third party to force its/his way into the plaintiff's suit more particularly when such a party as the petitioner -applicant in the instant case, has the legal remedies available in law by taking appropriate proceedings before a competent Court. The petitioner -applicant would be free to take his legal proceedings to agitate his claim/rights, if any, qua the suit property before the competent Court. Consequently, I find no force in the writ petition. It is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner -applicant would be free to take his remedy in accordance with law and further that the decree obtained by the plaintiff in the suit No. 114/2004 before the trial Court, would have no binding effect on the petitioner -applicant in view of the fact that he is not a party in the said suit.;