Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohammad Aabid vs Sub Divisional Officer on 28 November, 2016
Writ Petition No. 17652/2016
28.11.2016
Shri Abdul Vaheed Choudhary, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri Devashish Sakalkar counsel for the caveator.
Heard.
Present petition is directed against the order dated
24.9.2016, whereby the application preferred by
respondent nos. 4 to 6 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC
has been allowed and they have been directed to be brought on record as defendants in the civil suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner has filed a civil suit for declaration that he has acquired right for the suit property under the provisions of M.P Ke Nagriya Kshetro Me Rehne Wale Bhumiheen Vyaktiyon Ko (Pattadhrati Adhikar Diya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 and, therefore, he is entitled for decree of declaration as well as prohibitory injunction. The suit was filed only against the State Govt. and its officials.
2. Respondent nos. 4 to 6 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC alleging that they are necessary party and they pointed out that the plaintiff has encroached upon the suit land and when an action was taken to remove the illegal encroachment by the Tahsildar he has come out with the suit in respect of part of Khasra No. 65/2, whereas the entire Khasra No. 65 has been recorded in the Revenue Record as Government land used as a public road. It is further claimed in the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 have acquired easementry right over the suit property and any judgment and decree passed in respect of Khasra No. 65/2 was adversely affected their rights .
After having heard rival submissions, learned trial Judge has allowed the application by the order impugned for the reasons stated in the impugned order.
After having heard the rival contentions and considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, I do not find any illegality or irregularity with the order impugned. No doubt, plaintiff is a dominus litis and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not claim any relief, but the doctrine of dominus litis would not come into play when a person would be adversely affected for no fault of his own.
The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in a matter of impleading parties because it is also the duty of the Court to ensure that if for deciding the real matter in dispute, a person is a necessary party, the court can always orders such person to be impleaded.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no illegality or infirmity with the order impugned.
The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.K.Seth) Judge AD/