Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It needs no reference, that under the principle of dominus litis, it has been a consistent view, which has been expressed by the various High Courts, including the Hon'ble Apex Court, that under the principle of dominus litis, it is exclusively the prerogative of the plaintiff to the proceedings to choose his opposite party / defendant. A plaintiff cannot be forced upon by the defendant to add a person as a party to the suit, until and unless, he himself willingly feels, that the party would be a necessary party. The said observation has been made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in (2020) 14 SCC 392, Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. The observation has been made in para 14 of the said judgment, which is extracted hereunder :-

"14. It is a settled principle of law, which does not need any authority to support the principle, that the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be forced to add any person as party to his suit unless it is held keeping in view the pleadings and the relief claimed therein that a person sought to be added as party is a necessary party and without his presence neither the suit can proceed and nor the relief can be granted. It is only then such person can be allowed to become party, else the suit will have to be dismissed for non-impleadment of such necessary party. Such does not appear to be a case here."

7. Almost a similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a judgement reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2023, Kranti Arora Vs. DIGJAM Ltd., wherein too the Delhi High Court in the said judgment in para 18 has dealt with the basic ethos of the principle, as to what would the term "dominus litis" means. In fact, it has inferred that the term "dominus litis" in its literal sense means that a person who is the master of the proceedings of the suit, whose real interest is at stake, it is rather his decision, which is to be taken to implead or choose his opponent.

8. The defendant to the suit, cannot according to his wisdom or choice files an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, to implead a third party to the proceedings, which is otherwise not chosen to be made as an opposite party by the plaintiff. The said principle has been observed in paragraphs 18 to 22, which have been extracted hereunder :-

"18. Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance. A third party is entitled to be impleaded as necessary party if that party is likely to suffer any legal injury due to outcome of the suit. The doctrine of dominus litis should not be over stretched in impleading the parties. The court can order a person to be impleaded as necessary party if his presence is required to decide real matter in dispute effectively. Merely because the, plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are having wide amplitude in operation. The Supreme Court in various decisions had interpreted scope and ambit of legal provisions as contained in Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal V Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 interpreted legal provision as contained in Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and held as under:-