NIRMAL MARBLES LTD. Vs. VIVEK BHAMBHANI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Banswara dated October 21, 1989 by which be has rejected the application of the petitioners moved Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleading it as a defendant in Civil Suit No. 74/89 Vivek Bhambhani v. State and Ors. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) THE petitioner had applied for the grant of a mining lease near village Khema Tallai (Banswara). On August 11, 1987, the Mining Engineer. Udaipur granted permission area was demarketed and demarkation and other fees and advance dead -rent were deposited. The Director, Mines and Geology, Udaipur ordered not to grant the Mining lease for the said area as it was a grazing land. On March 28, 1989, the Mining lease of the aforesaid area was granted in favour of the non -petitioner. On knowing it the petitioner filled an appeal before the Additional Director, Mines, Udaipur. He issued notice the non -petitioner No. 1. and stayed the operation of the said order dated March 28, 1989 and further directed the non -petitioner No. 1 not to undertake any Mining operation in the area by his order dated July 30, 1989. Thereafter, the non -petitioner No. 1 filed the said suit in the court of the Munsif, Banswara challenging the aforesaid order dated July 21, 1989 and also the consequential order dated 26, 1989 of the Assistant Mining Engineer, Banswara. The plaintiff non -petitioner No. 1 did not implead the petitioner. As such he moved an application Under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC for impleading him. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif rejected the application by his order under revision.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for non -petitioner No. 1 that in every suit the plaintiff is dominus litis , he is free to choose against whom he will fight and against whom he will not fight, be the effect whatever may. He further contended that Mining lease has duly been granted in favour of the non -petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner has no right in the area for which Mining lease has been granted, he would not suffer any irreparable injury or the order under revision, if allowed to stayed, would not occasion a failure of justice to him. He also contended that the suit can well be decided in absence of the petitioner, his presence is not at all necessary and he has no direct interest in the suit. He relied upon : [1959]1SCR1111 and : 1969 WLN 316.