RAJENDRA YADAV Vs. ARATI PLASTIC & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for eviction of a licencee complains of an order dated April 1, 2016 by which a stranger has been allowed to be impleaded as a plaintiff upon such stranger claiming to be a co-sharer of the property with the plaintiff.

(2.) The opposite party no.2, the added party, is not represented despite previous service and recent notice.

(3.) It was always open to the petitioner herein to oppose or embrace the opposite party no.2 as a co-sharer. Once the petitioner herein had opposed the alleged co-sharer, the alleged co-sharer was not entitled to jump in as a co-plaintiff and the trial court was completely wrong in adding the alleged cosharer as an added plaintiff. Indeed, the plaintiff being dominus litus and having the carriage of proceedings has complete freedom to choose the parties to the action. By the order impugned, the trial court has virtually granted a declaration in favour of the added opposite party no.2 without any evidence or other material available to the court. Merely because a person asserts that he is a co-sharer does not make him a co-sharer.