IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiffs are dominus litis – Unless court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10, CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against wish of plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in CMP No. 258/2019, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellants herein – original plaintiffs and has confirmed the order passed by the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and thereby directing to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiffs, the original plaintiffs have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the appellants – original plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No. 298/2011 against the original defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. In the said suit, original defendants appeared and filed their joint written statement along with counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and for permanent injunction. After the evidence from the side of the plaintiffs was closed, original defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed for impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party defendants alleging inter alia that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have illegally and unlawfully alienated some parcels of the disputed land in favour of one Manasi Sahoo wife of Sanjaya Kumar Sahoo, Bharat Chandra Sahoo, Dhaneswar Sahoo and Kedarnath Sahoo. Therefore, it was prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants for proper adjudication of the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

2.1 The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs – appellants herein on the ground that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no locus standi to file such an application. It was also the case on behalf of the original plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and nobody can be permitted to join/implead as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

2.2 By order dated 20.02.2019, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khorda allowed the said application and directed to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants by observing that the subsequent purchasers are the lis pendens purchasers and the lis pendens purchasers may be added as proper parties to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was filed at the instance of original defendant Nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiffs preferred writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – original plaintiffs has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, both, the trial Court as well as the High Court have committed a grave error in allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was at the instance of the defendants.

3.1 It is then submitted that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

3.2 It is further submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, which has been relied upon and followed by the High Court, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

4. On the other hand, it is the case on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 that as the part of the suit property was transferred illegally in favour of the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit, to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings and to pass an effective decree, the trial Court rightly allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and directed to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants. It is therefore submitted that the Hig