S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 14.05.2013 in Title Suit No. 78 of 2011 whereby, defendant Nos. 2 to 6 have been deleted from array of parties, the present writ petition has been filed. The petitioner claiming himself son of Jumini Bibi defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 78 of 2011 has objected to order dated 14.05.2013 on the ground that, if the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, it would seriously affect their rights. The Title Suit No. 78 of 2011 was filed for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants over the suit property. A further prayer for directing the defendant -first party to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession to the plaintiffs has also been made in the said suit, besides an order of permanent injunction against the defendant -first party. Subsequently, an application for substitution of defendant No. 1, who died on 11.05.2011 was filed by the plaintiffs and the widow of the defendant No. 1 and his two sons as well as widow and sons of Md. Salauddin Mian, who predeceased his father defendant No. 1 were substituted in place of defendant No. 1. In the written statement filed on behalf of defendant No. 1, genealogical table produced by the plaintiffs was disputed. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs filed Eviction Case No. 16 of 1994 -95 which was dismissed vide order dated 30.12.1996 and Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 73 of 1996 -97 filed against order dated 30.12.1996 was dismissed on 15.06.2002. It was further pleaded that decree in Title Partition Suit No. 126 of 1967 was not binding on them as they were not party in the partition suit and the decree was collusive and fraudulent one.
(2.) MR . K.P. Deo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application dated 16.02.2012 filed by the plaintiffs for deleting defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from the array of parties was not maintainable. In the suit, the plaintiffs have sought a direction upon the defendant -first party to vacate the suit premises and to hand over possession to the plaintiffs and thus, if the suit is finally decreed in favour of the plaintiffs, it would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner who is legal heir of defendant No. 2. It is further submitted that impugned order dated 14.05.2013 may lead to multiplicity of litigation in as much as, the petitioner may be required to file a suit for declaration of his right, title and interest over a part of the suit property. In a suit the plaintiff being Dominus Litus has choice to choose party to a suit against whom he seeks a relief. Though, in exercise of power under Order I, Rule 10, CPC, the trial court can implead a party for complete and effective adjudication of the case, it is well settled that if the plaintiff himself decides to delete name of one or more defendants from the array of parties, it would be at the risk and cost of the plaintiff. In the present case, plaintiffs filed application dated 16.02.2012 seeking deletion of defendant Nos. 2 to 6 from the array of parties and the said application has been allowed by the trial court. In application dated 16.02.2012, the plaintiffs have asserted that legal heirs of defendant Nos. 2 to 6, who had already died are not necessary party to the suit. It is further asserted that the plaintiffs have sought relief only against the defendant No. 1. The apprehension raised on behalf of the petitioner that in the event the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants, he may be evicted from the suit premises is unfounded. The petitioner has failed to aver that he is in possession of a part of suit property. The petitioner has not disclosed extent of his share in the property of defendant No. 1. Moreover, the order impleading legal heirs and successors of defendant No. 1 has not been challenged by the petitioner. In view of order dated 14.05.2013 it would be open to the petitioner to raise a plea that, the decree in Title Suit No. 78 of 2011 is not binding upon him. On an anticipated apprehension that decree in the title suit may lead to multiplicity of litigation, order dated 14.05.2013 cannot be challenged. Considering the above facts, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.;