Bombay High Court
Pannalal Chedalal Tiwari Thr His ... vs City Survey Officer Ulhasnagar And Ors on 11 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:7377
Megha 45_wp_1767 & 1768_2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1767 OF 2022
Chotelal Ramsahay Yadav ...Petitioner
V/s.
City Survey Officer, Ulhasnagar and
Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1768 OF 2022
Pannalal C. Tiwari
(deceased through legal heirs)
1A Shambabu Pannalal Tiwari and Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
City Survey Officer, Ulhasnagar and
Ors. ...Respondents
________________
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi with Mr. Pradyumna S. Thakurdesai for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Patil with Mr. Devesh Samant with Ms. Sayli Patil, Mr. Afsar
Ansari and Ms. Apurva R. For Respondent No.3.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 11 FEBRUARY 2026.
P.C.:
1) These Petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 5 December 2020 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan, on Exhibits 21 and 19 filed in Regular Civil Suit Nos.59 and 60 of 2012 allowing impleadment of the Applicants therein under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for joining them as Defendant No.3.Page No.1 of 4
11 February 2026 Megha 45_wp_1767 & 1768_2022
2) I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Patil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 and have considered the submissions canvassed by them. I have also gone through the findings recorded in the impugned order.
3) Petitioners have filed the Suits seeking injunction against the City Survey Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer from carrying out measurements of the suit property. It appears that the said two officers were likely to conduct measurements on account of Applications submitted by Respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 claims ownership in respect of the suit properties. In that view of the matter Respondent No.3 is obviously a necessary party to the Suit.
4) Mr. Joshi relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and others V. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and others 1 in support of his contention that Plaintiff is the dominus litis of his suit and cannot be forced to implead a party against the desire of the Plaintiff. Therefore in Ashok Babarao Patil V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.2 this Court has held that the principle of Plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleadment of parties where the suit ultimately results in ineffective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties. This Court held in paragraphs 16 to 20 of the judgment as under:-
16. The source of power of the Court to add parties is traceable to provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code which reads thus :
Order I Rule 10 1 AIROnline 2022 SC 120 4304 2 Writ Petition No.10493 of 2022, decided on 11 October 2022 (Aurangabad Bench) Page No.2 of 4 11 February 2026 Megha 45_wp_1767 & 1768_2022 (2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
17. There can be no dispute about the proposition that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his own suit. It is his choice to seek injunction only against the persons he chooses. This is well settled proposition of law and needs no reiteration. It may be profitable to refer to the judgment of Apex court in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417 in this regard:
"13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code", for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties."
18. Further discussing the scope of Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code, the Apex Court has held as under:
22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-
rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person who is not a party to the suit. The court can strike out any party who is improperly joined. The court can add anyone as a plaintiff or as a defendant if it finds that he is a necessary party or proper party. Such deletion or addition can be without any conditions or subject to such terms as the court deems fit to impose. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice.
19. The provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code are very wide and the powers of the court are equally extensive. Even without an application to Page No.3 of 4 11 February 2026 Megha 45_wp_1767 & 1768_2022 be impleaded as a party, the court may, at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party, who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
20. The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, which results in ineffective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non- interested persons/officials and then use it to assert rights of Plaintiff. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in dispute is effectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties. Merely because plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. If the Court feels it appropriate that any particular party's presence is necessary before the Court for adjudicating upon the issue involved in the suit, the Court has full power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code to direct addition of such party to the suit.
5) In my view, the judgment in Ashok Babarao Patil squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
6) Though ordinarily, the principle of Plaintiff being dominus litis is applied by courts, the same would not apply in a case where the suit is deliberately filed by avoiding to implead the party at whose instance the impugned action is initiated by the authorities. In the present case, the Petitioners are seeking ineffective decree against Defendants, who are not interested in defending the Suit. Intention behind filing the Suit is to restrain Respondent No.3 for having the suit properly measured. Real interested party in defending the Suit is Respondent No.3.
7) In view of above, no infirmity is traced in the impugned order. Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Signed by: Megha S. Parab Page No.4 of 4 Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 11 February 2026 Date: 12/02/2026 20:42:18