Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 4.2.14 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jodhpur Metropolitan City in Civil Suit No. 7/13, whereby an application preferred by the petitioners herein for imp leading them as party defendants in the suit, stands rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land in respect whereof the respondent -plaintiff has sought injunction forms part of the way which is being used by the residents of villages nearby. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent -plaintiff has encroached upon the land forming part of the way in the length of 150 ft. and the existing way has been obstructed, which is causing undue hardship to the petitioners and their likes. Learned counsel submitted that for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, it is absolutely necessary that the petitioners are impleaded as party defendants in the suit. Learned counsel submitted that on account of encroachment being made, the proceedings are initiated against the respondent -plaintiff by the Tehsildar under Sec. 91 of Land Revenue Act, 1956. Learned counsel submitted that nobody can be permitted to encroach upon the land forming part of the way set apart for use of the general public and thus, the petitioners are bound to be vitally affected by the decision of the suit. Learned counsel submitted that while passing the order impugned, the Court below has failed to consider the relevant aspects of the matter, which has resulted in erroneous finding being arrived at. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the matter relates to agriculture land and therefore, the suit is not maintainable before the civil Court.
(2.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Indisputably, as per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2), the Court may at any stage add a person as a party to the suit as defendant or plaintiff, whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
(3.) A perusal of the order impugned reveals that the Court below has considered all the relevant aspects objectively. The Court observed that as a matter of fact, the petitioners claiming the right to use the 'kataani' way passing through the disputed land, filed a suit accompanied by an application seeking temporary injunction against the respondent -plaintiff, wherein the Commissioner appointed by the Court submitted the site inspection report observing that no way as alleged passing through the land comprising khasra No. 507 and 282 exists. As per the Commissioner's report submitted before the Court, there exists a way passing along the side of the land comprising khasra No. 507 and 282. It is a matter of record that the suit filed by the petitioners herein claiming the relief as aforesaid was withdrawn by them on 04.05.2013. It is to be noticed that in the present suit filed the respondent -plaintiff has sought relief against the official respondents which are in position to defend the suit effectively. The petitioners have not been able to make out any case as to why their presence is required before the Court for effectual and complete adjudication of the lis involved in the suit. In considered opinion of this Court, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioners keeping in view the basic principle that the plaintiff who is dominus litis of the proceedings, cannot be compelled to contest against the party, against whom he does not wish to contest.;