. Notice for final disposal of petition at admission stage was issued to respondents. None appeared for the respondents.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner, plaintiff, filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.144 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Paranda, District Osmanabad, for possession of the suit property. In short, the petitioner’s case is that at the time of measurement of land, it was noticed that respondents had encroached upon the land owned and possessed by the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents to remove the encroachment, but as they were found to be reluctant, the petitioner was constrained to file suit. The suit was filed in the year 2005. According to the petitioner, respondents - defendants appeared in the suit.

4. The defendant No.1, who is a son of the defendant No.2, filed an application dated 28/10/2005 stating therein that the defendant No.2 does not hold any land in Block No.260 in his name; whereas the defendant No.1 holds land admeasuring 1 Hectare 52 Ares in the said Block number. The defendant No.1 prayed for deletion of defendant No.2 from the proceedings of the suit. The plaintiff objected to the said application.

5. By an order dated 01/02/2006, the learned Civil Judge allowed the application filed by defendant No.1 and directed deletion of name of the defendant No.2 as prayed for by observing that, according to the defendant No.1 he is in possession of portion out of Block No.260 and his father was not in possession of the same. The said order is subject-mater of the writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The leaned counsel Shri.S.T.Ghute submitted that considering the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "C.P.C."), a plaintiff is dominus litis as far as the litigation started by him is concerned and would be in a better position to decide as to who should be defendant of the suit instituted by him. In the facts of the case, it was submitted that the plaintiff had raised pleadings in the suit to the effect that both the defendants had encroached upon the portion occupied by the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit was filed against both the defendants for relief of possession. The plaintiff contends that the defendant No.1 is son and defendant No.2 is father of defendant No.1. In the light of these facts and circumstances, according to the counsel, the trial Court committed error of jurisdiction in directing deletion of defendant No.2 from array of defendants. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following reported judgments to support his contentions.

(1) Herbertsons Ltd. vs. Kishore Rajaram Chhabria

[2003(3) Mh.L.J.550],

(2) Adam A.Sorathia vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay

[2001(3) Mh.L.J. 288],

(3) Amit Kumar Shaw vs. Farida Khatoon

[2005(3) Mh.L.J. 330].

7. The relevant provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C. read thus :

"10. (1).... .

(2) Court may strike out or add parties. - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

8. The purport of the provisions of Order I Rule 10, is clear that the Court has power to order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out and the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, may be added.

9. In the prese