JUDGMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J.:---Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.

2. This Civil Revision arises out of the order passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Ichalkaranji dated 12-2-1999 whereby the respondents were impleaded on their own accord. The respondent has contended before the Court that though the reliefs sought in the suit being related to electricity connection only against the State Electricity Board, the plaintiff traced out his right that emanates from disconnection by the Electricity Board of the connections which the plaintiff was using. In other words, the Electricity Board had disconnected the electric connection belonging to the respondents, who were newly impleaded.

3. Plaintiff has tried to make out a case in the plaint that his cause of action arises from the act of disconnection of electricity connection which made the plaintiff to apply for fresh electric connection independently. In this context, the respondent approached the trial Court voluntarily and prayed that they may also be heard in the suit. The trial Court after considering the contentions of the plaintiff and respondents allowed the said application. It is this order that is challenged in this revision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary party and no relief has been sought against them in the suit, and therefore, their application for impleadment ought to have been dismissed by the Court below.

4. Mr. Kumbhakoni, Counsel for the petitioner elaborates his contention submitting that the plaintiff is dominus litus and without his concurrence no party should be impleaded. He has also cited a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in (Jivanlal Damodardas Wani v. Narayan Ukha Sali)1, reported in A.I.R. 1972 Bombay 148. This Court in that judgment had laid down certain guidelines for impleadment of the party litigant in the suit. In fact, that judgment relates to the impleadment at the instance of the defendant who raised a contention in the written statement that the particular person is necessary party to the suit and in that context the Court has laid down guidelines. In the facts of that case, I fully agree to the conclusion reached in that case; but I beg to disagree certain observations made by the learned Single Judge. It appears that the learned Judge has undertaken the task of construing the meaning and content of Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is said in the guideline No. 3 that in exercise of discretion of Order 1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure the Court would not ordinarily add the party without concurrence of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is dominus litus as far as litigation in question is concerned. From this it would follow that it is only in exceptional cases that a party would be added as party defendant without the concurrence of the plaintiff. This decision is rendered in 1972. Much water has been flown under the bridge after the decision is rendered. After this judgment, in 1977, amendment was brought to the Code of Civil Procedure and added a provision Order 1, Rule 8-A which reads as under :

"8-A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings.---While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify."

5. By the above amendment, the Parliament has widened the scope of locus in tune with changing times. Courts were also relaxing the rigid rule of locus in the interest of justice.

6. Impleadment of a third party in a suit is an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document