CHITTAR LAL Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dt. 06.04.2012, whereby the Additional District Judge (Fast Track), No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissed the application of the petitioners -applicants filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the applicants being the legal representatives of late Shri Harbux, they were entitled to get their share in the disputed property. The plaintiff and defendants in collusion with each other filed a suit for specific performance of contract so as to deprive the petitioners from their right to get the ancestral property. They were the necessary party in the suit, but the learned trial Court arbitrarily rejected their application and gainsaid to implead them as party in the suit.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that an agreement to sale with regard to disputed property was executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the contractual relationship was between the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants are found to be the fathers of the applicants -petitioners. No entry was made in the revenue record in the - name of the applicants -petitioners.

(3.) IT is a well settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it was not for the Court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not the province of a Court of law to interfere with that right. If the plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer.