GOKAL CHAND Vs. PURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Civil revision No. 1606 of 1977 and eight other connected petitions -Civil Revision Nos. 1956 to 1963 of 1977, they involve common questions of law and fact.

(2.) THE plaintiffs through this petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter called the Code) have challenged the order of the learned Sub -Judge, Second Class, Palwal, dated September 15, 1977, whereby the application under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code of respondent Nos. 7 to 9 was allowed and they were ordered to be impleaded as defendants.

(3.) MR . Gokal Chand Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the legality of the impugned order on the grounds that no person can be ordered to be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff he being dominus litis, and that no relief having been claimed against the said respondents, they were neither proper nor a necessary party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on three decisions of this Court in Manmohan Singh v. Shri Sat Narain, (1971)73 P.L.R. 525, Padam Kumar Jain v. Digamber Jain Sabha, 1969 Cur. L.J. 1041, Hari Ram v. Inder, C.R. 1490 of 1976, decided on April 7, 1977, these decisions is of any help to the petitioners as all of them were rendered on their own facts and in none of them was it laid down as principle of law that a person whom the plaintiff does not want to be so impleaded or against whom no relief is claimed cannot be ordered to be impleaded as a party by the Court.