KALU RAM Vs. INDRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order by which the trial court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the applicants and impleaded the applicants as defendant in the suit.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner the applications failed to even submit that they are effected parties and there is no reason for impleading these applicants as defendant in the suit of the plaintiff. Since plaintiff is dominus litus and, therefore, he cannot be compelled to contest the suit against the defendant who are now impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner-plaintiff has not sought any relief against the applicants-non-petitioners and no right of the applicants will be effected by the decision of the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought relief against only the State with respect to his own irrigation facilities. Therefore, neither the applicants are necessary parties nor they are proper parties and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to contest the suit against these persons. Therefore, the trial court without examining these aspects of the matter wrongly impleaded the applicants as party.

(3.) THIS Court has decided the above case of RLR 1987 (II) page 462 and specifically observed that the person who is seeking permission to be impleaded as party in the suit merely because he feels that he will be in position to defend the suit in better manner then he cannot be impleaded as party. THIS reasoning itself shows that there was lack of interest of the party better position to defend the suit of the plaintiff and, therefore, it was held that he cannot be impleaded as party.