(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 16th February, 2012, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) (East), Jaipur Metropolitan dismissed the application of the petitioner -applicant filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. Adumbrated in brief, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the respondent -defendant in the court of Civl Judge (Jr.Div.) (East), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner -applicant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC imploring the court that she and proforma respondent had jointly taken the premises on rent and she was not made party to the suit despite the fact that she had been paying rent to the respondent -plaintiff, as such, she may also be impleaded as a party defendant in the suit. The learned trial court, having considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, did not think the petitioner -applicant to be a necessary or a proper party for adjudication of the suit and thus, dismissed the application. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner -applicant has invoked the extra -ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) AT the very outset, it is relevant to record that it is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select adversary from whom he seeks relief and it was not for a Court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not a province of a Court of law to interfere with that right. If a plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the Court to worry about.
(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.