Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. G.R.Palsra, learned counsel representing the petitioners, is that the plaintiffs being dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead any person, whose impleadment is not necessary for adjudication of the case at hand.

Mr. G.R.Palsra, submitted that bare perusal of the averments contained in the plaint clearly reveals that at no point of time plaintiffs admitted Smt. Gaurja Devi to be owner of the property, rather she is residing with her son Bhim Singh, against whom plaintiffs has filed the suit. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further submitted that great prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiffs in case Smt. Gaurja Devi is impleaded and permitted to file written statement because in that event, plaintiffs may not get an opportunity to file cross objections to refute the claim put forth by Smt. Gaurja Devi that .

she has become owner by way of adverse possession. Learned counsel representing the petitioners further argued that original defendants namely Sh. Khem Singh and Sh. Bhim Singh are the nephew and son of Smt. Gaurja Devi respectively, who at no point of of time was ever inducted as tenant in the premises and as such, otherwise is not entitled to claim adverse possession.

9. rt While placing reliance upon the judgment passed Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Ram Prakash and another vs. Puttan Lal, (2020) 14 Supreme Court Cases 418, Mr. Palsra submitted that otherwise also plaintiffs being dominus litis cannot be compelled to implead person as a party respondent/defendant if his/her impleadment is not necessary for proper adjudication of the case. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case tilted Asian Hotels (North) Limited versus Alok Kumar Lodha and others, (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 145, wherein it came to be held that plaintiff cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and/or proper parties at all on the ground that plaintiffs is the dominus litis.

17. Similarly, in case titled Asian Hotels (North) Limited of versus Alok Kumar Lodha and others, Hon'ble Apex Court held that plaintiff cannot be permitted to join any party as defendant, who may not be necessary or proper party at all on the ground that plaintiff rt is dominus litis. Relevant para No.37 of the aforesaid judgment is as under:-

"37. From the impugned order passed by the High Court, it appears that what has weighed with the High Court is that plaintiffs, is the dominus litus and heavy reliance is placed in the case of Kasturi (supra). However, the principle that the plaintiffs is the dominus litis shall be applicable only in a case where parties sought to be added as defendants are necessary and / or proper parties. Plaintiffs cannot be permitted to join any party as a defendant who may not be necessary and / or proper parties at all on the ground that the plaintiffs is the dominus litis."

18. If the aforesaid judgment is read in its entirety, it clearly reveals that plaintiff being dominus litis can add or delete any party but in case he seeks to join party, which is not necessary, he cannot be permitted to implead such person on the ground that he is dominus litis. In the instant case, for the reasons taken note hereinabove, Smt. Gaurja Devi successfully established on record that she being necessary party is required to be impleaded as party and as such, no illegality and infirmity can be said to have been committed by learned .