Jdugment

FATIIIMA BEEVI, J.

(1) WE have to consider in this appeal the question whether respondent 2 is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the suit instituted by the appellant against respondent 1.

(2) UNDER the Dealership Agreement of 1974, the appellant is in possession of the service station erected on the land held by respondent 2 herein, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as lessee. The service station consists of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles. Respondent 1, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued notice dated 5/08/1988 under S. 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant for demolition of two chattels on the terrace on the ground that these were unauthorised constructions. The appellant instituted the Suit No. 6181 of 1988 before the City Civil court, Bombay, challenging the validity of the notice and for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures. Interim injunction was granted by the court.

(3) ON 9/09/1988, respondent 2 applied for being impleaded as additional defendant in the suit on the ground that they have materials to show that the constructions are unauthorised, and they are necessary partics to the litigation. The court by order dated 22/08/1989 directed the appellant to add respondent 2 as defendant and amend the plainl suitably rejecting the contentions of the appellant that respondent 2 was neither a necessary nor a proper party to be impleaded in the suit. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4229 of 1989 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High court of Bombay challenging the correctness of the order. The High court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High court dated 13/10/1989.

(4) THREE grounds have been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant against the sustainability of the order. The plaintiff was dominus litis and, therefore, cannot be forced to join respondent 2 as defendant. Respondent 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The addition of the respondent would enlarge the issue in the suit. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum.

(5) IT was argued that the court cannot direct addition of parties against the wishes of the plaintiff who cannot be compelled to proceed against a person against whom he docs not claim any relief. Plaintiff is no doubt dominus litis and is not hound to sue every possible adverse claimant in the same suit. He may choose to impicad only those persons as defendants against whom he wishes to proceed though under Order 1 Rule 3, to avoid multiplicity of suit and needless expenses all persons against whom the right to relief is alleged to exist may be joined as defendants. However, the court may at any stage of the suit direct addition of parlies. A party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff docs not think that he has any cause of action against him. Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open to the court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

(6) SUB-RULE (2 of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the court to meet every case of defect of partics and is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be