ANIL KUMAR Vs. CYAN DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has come up in revision aggrieved byorder dated 17.11.1984 passed by the Trial Court ejecting an application underOrder I Rule 10 r/w Section 151 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff-petitioner.

(2.) It appears that there is a dispute between two tenants of the same property.The plaintiff/petitioner is a tenant on the first floor. The defendant is a tenant onthe ground floor. The suit property is part of a Varandash situated on the first floor.The cause of action set out by the plaintiff petitioner is that the defendant comeson the 1st floor and creats obstruction in the use and enjoyment of the Varandaby the plaintiff. The defendant has taken a plea in the written statement thatthe- suit property forms part of his tenancy. Looking to the defence taken in thewritten statement the plaintiff/petitioner moved an application for joining theandlord as a defendant in the suit. The Trial Court did not notice the landlordproposed to be joined as additional defendant on the application of the plaintiffunder Order-1 Rule 10 CPC. It heard the defendant. The opposition offered by thedefendant prevailed with the Trial Court leading to rejection of the applicationon the reasoning that the landlord could be a witness but not a necessary party tothe suit.

(3.) The Trial Court may be right in forming opinion that the landlord wasnot a necessary party to the suit inasmuch as no relief was claimed against him butthe Trial Court failed to see that the party proposed to be joined was atleast aproper party. The palintiff is dominus litus league in civil proceedings. In thematter of parties ordinarily the wishes of the plaintiff have to be respected. Theplaintiff could have joined the landlord as a party to the suit from the verybeginning if he had so desired. However, in the present case need of joining thelandlord as aparty to the suit became alive to the plaintiff in view of the defenceraised by the tenant in his written statement, the presence of the landlord as aparty to the suit would certainly assist the Court in effectually adjudicating uponthe principal question arising for decision for the suit as the plea taken by thelandlord in his written statement would go a long way in determining the statusof the plaintiff and the present defendant qua the suit property. In the opinion ofthis Court the Trial Court has on erroneous consideration failed to exercise thejurisdiction which has vested in it by law.