Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Robin Ramjibhai Patel vs Anandibai Rama @ Rajaram Pawar . on 10 November, 2016
12. The arguments advanced before this Court are similar to the
arguments advanced by petitioner in the said writ petition and
after considering all the said arguments so also the judgment
relied upon by petitioner before this Court, i.e. Robin Ramjibhai
Patel (supra), J.N. Real Estate (supra) were also taken into
account and the writ petitions preferred by the petitioner were
being dismissed with following observations:
Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs Alok Kumar Lodha on 12 July, 2022
8.5 In determining whether a person is a necessary party, the
court must consider whether such person would be bound by the
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:58:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:21:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4655] (9 of 16) [CW-15695/2025]
result of the action and whether his presence is necessary for a
complete and final decision on the questions involved in the suit.
8.6 In other words, the status of dominus litis provides
safeguard to the plaintiff from being compelled, either by the court
or at the instance of a party, to implead parties against his will,
unless such parties are found to be necessary for the effective and
complete adjudication of the dispute. At the same time, the
doctrine does not confer an unfettered right upon the plaintiff to
array any person as a party to the proceedings merely on his will.
The court retains the discretion to examine whether the proposed
party is a necessary or at least a proper party, and may refuse
impleadment if the presence of such person is not found essential
for resolving the controversy involved in the matter. Thus, this
Court finds that Dominus litis primarily operates as a shield
against forced joinder, rather than a sword to guarantee
that every impleadment application by the plaintiff must be
allowed. The same has been held in a catena of judgments.
8.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v.
Alok Kumar Lodha, (2022) 8 SCC 145 expounded upon the
scope of doctrine of dominus litis and held that the doctrine of
same is only applicable where parties sought to be added are
necessary and/or proper parties. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced herein below:
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
8.9 Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Hirachand
Kundanmal v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Bombay, (1992)
2 SCC 524 held that the question of impleadment of parties
squarely falls within the realm of judicial discretion. Even if the
plaintiff, invoking the doctrine of dominus litis, opposes the
addition of parties, such objection cannot override the Court's
statutory as well as inherent power to ensure that all necessary
and proper parties are brought on record. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced herein:
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
16. The petitioner has failed to establish any error apparent on
the face of the record or any jurisdictional error being committed
by the learned trial Court in passing the order impugned,
warranting the interference of this Court. The scope of
interference by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction is very
limited. The contours of Article 227 of the Constitution of India
have well being delineated ad nauseum and reference may be
made for the purpose to some salutary pronouncements such as
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC
Jai Singh & Ors vs M.C.D. & Anr on 23 September, 2010
329. Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC
Surya Dev Rai vs Ram Chander Rai & Ors on 7 August, 2003
385. Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675 -
instead of burdening this judgment with copious quotes therefrom.
It has been broadly held therein that the interlocutory orders of
the courts below not be interfered with under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India unless such orders are palpably vitiated by
capriciousness, perversity, error of jurisdiction or such like root
causes leading to manifest injustice. The amendment to Section
115 CPC effective 1.7.2002 vide the Code of Civil Procedure
(Amended) Act, 1999 was intended to be a prescription to
overcome delays in trials of civil suits which delays are notorious
and adversely commented on publically. The salutary provisions of
Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be
(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:58:35 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:21:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:4655] (16 of 16) [CW-15695/2025]
casually invoked to circumvent legislative intent clear from the
CPC amendment effective 1.7.2002. No doubt the court's
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is ever present but its
exercise has to be guarded and confined to situations referred to
above. None of the aforesaid situations obtain in the instant case.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1