Judgment:
Prakash Tatia, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the trial Court dt. 13.02.2009 whereby the trial Court allowed the applicant's-resopndent's application for being impleaded as party.
3. There is no need to give more details fact other than the facts which are substantially not in dispute that the applicant is claiming that the industrial plot was allotted to him by the RIICO as back as on 03.01.1977 and a lease deed was registered in his favour on 12.09.1979. The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit before 1982 against the RIICO only wherein the applicant submitted application for being impleaded as party, which was allowed by the trial Court. That suit of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court and ultimately by the High Court, the second appeal of the plaintiff was dismissed.
4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the present plaintiff-petitioner also filed a suit for declaration wherein the applicant is party impleaded by the plaintiff himself. Only limited argument is that in a suit for injunction against the Electricity Board against disconnection of the supply, how the applicant can be a necessary party against which no relief has been claimed by the plaintiff nor the applicant can resist the connection of the plaintiff. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in possession of the property since before the allotment of the land to the applicant.
5. Since the petitioner was impleaded as party in suit filed by the plaintiff himself as back as in the year 1982 and he was party in the first appeal, second appeal and, thereafter, in a suit filed for declaration by the plaintiff and therefore, there is no jurisdiction error in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court whereby the applicant has been impleaded as party in the suit. It is settled law that a person who is not necessary party and if Courts find that he is proper party then he can be impleaded as party even against the wishes of the plaintiff.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court delivered in the case of Fateh Raj v. Suraj Roop. reported in 1969 RLW 215, Mazhar Hussain v. Shafi Mohd., and Ors. reported in 1969 WLN 316 and Sumant Kumar Jain and Ors. v. Pramod Kumar Agarwal and Anr. reported in RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1661.
7. In the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Fateh Raj (supra) it has been held that in a suit for declaration against the Municipality party praying to be impleaded so that suit may be properly defended, this Court recognized the principle of dominus litus and refused to implead the party on the ground that applicant wants to be impleaded in the suit merely with an object of enabling them to see that it is properly defended. Such applicant cannot be impleaded as defendant for such purpose. Therefore, the judgment of Fateh Raj has no application to the facts of the present case.
8. In the judgment of Mazhar Hussain (supra) this Court held that plaintiff is dominus litus and cannot be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice unless such a process is required by a positive rule of law because Order 1 Rule 10(2) is applicable to two classes of cases only. In this case, this Court very carefully observed that the plaintiff being generally dominus litus, he can't be compelled to fight against some other litigant not of his own choice unless such a process is required by a positive rule of law. The Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is wide enough empowers the Court to implead the necessary party and thus Order 1 Rule 10 CPC itself suggests that there may be cases where even when the plaintiff is dominus litus, the Court can implead the party in a suit, therefore, it cannot be said that impleading the party in a suit is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. It depends upon the facts of each case whether one be impleaded as party or not.
9. In the judgment of this Court delivered in Sumant Kumar Jain (supra) again the plaintiff being dominus litus has been recognized and it has been held that plaintiff being dominus litus cannot be compelled to fight against some other litigants not of his own choice. This very judgment recognizes exception to this general rule and clearly observed that the rule empowers the Court to permit a person or body of persons interested in any question of law in issue in any suit to present his or its opinion before the Court and to take part in the proceedings in the suit.
10. It is relevant to mention here that normally a discretion exercised by the Court in the matter of impleading party is not interfered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but there are exception where the Court in supervisory jurisdiction interfere in such orders. Therefore, this Court is not rejecting the petitioner's prayer merely on the ground that this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , but it is not a fit case of exercising of jurisdiction because of the reason that since 1979, the applicant-defendant and plaintiff both were party in the litigation initiated by the plaintiff himself. This Court is not neither deciding nor can decide the right of the applicant, but so far as question of impleading of party is concerned, this question has cropped up.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there are two electricity connection in the suit premises, one in the name of the grand-father of the plaintiff and another in the name of plaintiff and in a case where the plaintiff is seeking relief against dis-connection of electricity in the premises, which is in force since more than 20 years then what the applicant can do in that suit.
12. Normally it is not expected to observe what the applicant who is seeking permission to become party will take a defence at the time when the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is concerned because of the reason that by that time, there cannot be plea and defence or please of said applicant before the Court. Be it as it may be, at the time of impleading a party in a suit the only consideration is that whether in the facts and circumstances of the case under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC the presence of the party is beneficial to the Court for deciding the suit correctly, effectively and to do justice. If these questions are in favour of the applicant and then even if any relief has not been claimed against party seeking permission to be impleaded as party then the Court may implead him as proper party. At this juncture, it may also be observed that for necessary party the decree is binding and for proper party if is impleaded as an intervenor with no relief against him then in that situation, if said party is impleaded in the suit then the decree may be only against those persons against whom relief has been sought and no decree may be against the person who has been impleaded as party in the suit as proper party and against whom no relief can be claimed then he may not have to face any execution of the decree except that he is bound by the decision given in the judgment. The proper parties are impleaded as party in spite of the fact that absence of proper party in the suit may not result into dismissal of the suit. In certain cases the third party's presence may give complete facts to the Court so as to pass any decision on any issue which may be raised by the plaintiff and contested by the defendant.
13. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.