FURKAN AHMAD Vs. SYED AHMAD RAZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Sharad Sharma, holding brief of Sri H. N. Sharma, learned counsel representing the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THIS revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, read with Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, as amended by the State of U. P. is directed against the order dated 1st January, 1991 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Etawah, exercising power of the Judge Small Causes in Small Cause Case No. 7 of 1989 between Saiyed Raza and Ansar Ahmad and others, whereby the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded as defendant in the suit has been rejected.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the applicant, at length and in detail, and giving its anxious consideration the court is of the opinion that the considerations on which the court below rejected the application of the applicant for being impleaded in the suit are substantially material relevant and in conformity with law. It is well settled that the plaintiff is dominus litis having dominion over his suit. He has a right and prerogative to choose and implead in his suit as defendant the person against whom he seeks relief. He is not obliged to implead a person, as defendant in the suit, against whom no relief is sought. It cannot be gainsaid that no decree in a suit can bind a person if he is not a party thereto or duly represented therein. In the suit giving rise to this revision, admittedly, the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 has claimed no relief against the applicant.