Judgment:
P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This application has been moved under Order 1. Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by New India Assurance Company Limited turn being imp leaded as party in the suit.
(2) Facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the present application are that Praveen Kumar Bhatia has tiled the present suit against defendants I and 2 who are the doctors and Defendants 3 the Nursing Home owned by Defendant 2, on the ground that due to their gross negligence in treating tbe plaintiff's wife, they have caused death of plaintiff's wife and thus plaintiff claims Rs. 20 lacs as damages from the defendants. The plea taken by the applicant insurance company in the application is that defendant being a qualified medical practitioner had obtained an insurance cover policy for the relevant period covering the risk as 'Doctors Indemnity Insurance. Ima Medical Protection Scheme' to the tune of Rs, l,00,000.00 , so it is mentioned in the application that applicant's interests are likely to be affected by any decision to be given in the suit and thus applicant should be allowed to be joined as defendant for defending the suit.
(3) This application is strongly opposed by the plaintiff taking the plea that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this suit and the question arising in this suit can be effectively decided, without impleading the applicant as parly. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against the applicant.
(4) It is pertinent to mention that earlier an application has been moved by defendant I to the similar effect but that application was dismissed by the order dated Feb., 10, 1987 by A.B. Saharya, J. with the finding that as no relief has been claimed against the insurance company and also the presence Of the insurance company is not required for a proper or effective determination of matters in controversy between the plaintiff and the defendants, it is not necessary to implead the insurance company as the party in the suit.
(5) Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that any decision given in the suit against the defendants is likely to affect the rights of the applicant inasmuch as the applicant shall be liable to re-imburse the Defendant I in case any damages are imposed on Defendant I on account of any finding given showing the negligence of the defendant in treating the plaintiffs wife. lam afraid that [be applicant cannot be joined as a party in the suit because the presence of the applicant is neither necessary nor proper for effectively deciding the issues in the suit. Any decision given in the suit to which the applicant is not a party is not going to affect the rights of the applicant inasmuch as the applicant can always take the pleas open to the applicant in meeting the claim which may be put forward by Defendant against the applicant after any decision is given adverse to the defendants in the suit No relief has been sought by the plaintiffs against the present applicant. In Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna l Ram Richhpal Oswal, the said provision of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code came up for consideration. Banarsi Dass had instituted a case for specific performance of contract for sale against Smt. Chameli. Banwari Lal and Panna Lal bad instituted a separate suit against Chameli for permanent injunction restraining her from Interference with a Chabutra in their possession and in the alternative they prayed fore relief for possession of that Chabutra. Banarsi Dass moved an application in that suit for being imp leaded as a parly mentioning that Chabutra was a part of the property which was the subject-matter of his suit for specific performance of a contract for sale filed against Smt. Chameli. He also pleaded that Panna Lal and Banwari Lal have filed the suit against Chameli in collusion to defeat the rights of Banarsi Dass, applieant. It was also pleaded that any decision given in the suit against Panna Lal and Banwari Lal would incidentally affect his claim against Smt. Chameli. However, the applicant was declined. It was held in this judgment that under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, a person may be added as a party when he ought or have been joined and it not joined i.e. whether he is a accessory party or when without his presence the question in the suit cannot be completely decided, It was held there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense -and' botheration of a separate suit for seeking: adjudication of a collateral matter which was not directly and substantively in issue in the suit. It was further observed that plaintiff is the dominus lit is and he is master of the suit and he cannot be compelled to fight against a person whom he does not wish to tight and against whom he does not claim any relief. It was held that only in exceptional cases where the Court finds that the addition of a new defendant is absolutely necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, will it add. a person as a defendant .without the consent of the plaintiff. In Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop, it was held that. only a person who has some interest in the subject-matter in suit who can be joined as a party and a person cannot be imp leaded as a party to see that the suit is properly defended by the already imp leaded defendants.
(6) The counsel for the applicant has cited Singheshwar Rai, v. Babulal Rai, : AIR1980Pat187 , Mahendra Singh v. Devi Gir, 1979 All Lj 1954 and M/s. Aero System v. Jagannath Sharma, : 14(1978)DLT234 . I have gone through these judgments and find that they are based on totally different facts. In the present case it is evident that for deciding the issues arising in the suit the presence of the applicant is not required. No finding given in the suit to which the applicant is not the party is going to affect the interests of the applicant. Hence I hold that applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit and thus I dismiss the application without any order regarding costs.