FATEH SINGH Vs. SOURABH SIKSHA SAMITI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been filed assailing the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Indri allowing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short, 'CPC') filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 for being impleaded as party to the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against respondent No. 1 Sourabh Siksha Samiti.

(2.) The submissions made by Mr. Virender Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioner have been considered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a Pattanama (lease deed) No. 776/1 dated 07.06.2013 was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1-Sourabh Siksha Samiti, Biana for a period w.e.f. 04.06.2013 to 04.06.2043. As per terms of the Pattanama, Rs. 32,000/- per year was to be paid by the lessee to the petitioner and after three years, the lease amount was to be increased by 15%, but as the respondent Samiti failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the lease deed and the agreement regarding enhancement of the lease money, he filed the instant suit praying for decree of declaration that the lease deed is illegal, null and void and also sought relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondent Samiti to hand over to him possession of the land in question. The Samiti has been sued through the manager who has appeared and is representing the said respondent. Respondents No.2 and 3 filed an application for being impleaded as party to the suit and learned trial court legally erred in allowing their application. They are neither necessary nor proper party in the suit as it was not their case that the petitioner had sought any relief against them. As far as impleadment of party is concerned, the plaintiff being "dominus litis" may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief.