The doctrine of dominus litis gives the plaintiff the right to decide against whom they want to litigate. A party cannot force themselves into a case and seek impleadment.

V.K. Shali, J.

CM Appl. 16572/2016 (O.1 Rule 10 CPC)

This is an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the applicants for being impleaded as a party to the present appeal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants. I have also gone through the record.

3. The appellant herein filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against respondents No. 1 and 2 claiming that the respondents/their predecessor-in-interest had vide agreement to sell dated 11.05.1988 agreed to sell the suit property, measuring 9 bighas and 3 biswas, situated in the village chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi to the appellants for a total consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/-. It has been stated that the appellants on the basis of the said documents purported to have been executed by the respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents in order to protect their title.

4. The learned trial Court after completion of the pleadings framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether there is an agreement to sell the farmland in question to the plaintiff, if so, then to what effect? OPP.

2. Whether the receipts Ex.P-1 to P-2 are not the receipts taken by the plaintiff by advancing loan? OPP.

3. Relief.”

5. The parties adduced their respective evidence and the Court thereafter hearing the arguments dismissed the suit.

6. The appellants/plaintiffs feelings aggrieved against the said judgment and decree preferred the present appeal which is RFA No. 110/2008 and is pending for the last 7-8 years for hearing.

7. In the meantime, the present applicants filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as a party on the ground that the mother of the applicants had purchased the suit property from the respondents/predecessor-in-interest for a valuable consideration way back in the year 1988 and that she took possession of the same. It has been contended that the applicants are in continuous possession of the suit property for the last more than 27 years or so and they have recently learnt about the fact that the appellants/plaintiffs have filed the appeal against the dismissal of their suit.

8. He has contended that the respondents in the written statement has admitted that their predecessor-in-interest had sold the suit property during her lifetime for consideration to some purchaser although the name of the present applicants have not been given. On the strength of the same, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that they be impleaded as a party to the present suit. The learned counsel for the applicants have placed reliance on the following judgments; Adapa Venkateswra Rao & Anr. v. Mohamman Suleman & Ors., AIR 1994 AP 50; Vimala Ammal v. C. Suseela & Ors., AIR 1991 Madras 209; andDwarka Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Harikant Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR 1973 SC 655.

9. In Dwarka Prasad’s case (supra), it was the plaintiff himself who had made the subsequent purchaser as a party, while as, in the present case, the purchaser wants to become a party, which is against the concept of dominus litus.

10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the averments made in the application as well as the judgments.

11. Suffice it would be here to mention that the appellants have filed a suit for specific performance against the respondents which was contested and after contest the suit of the appellants was dismissed. Appellants accordingly feelings aggrieved have preferred the present appeal which is pending.

12. The present applicants have filed an application for being impleaded as a party on the ground that they have vital interest in the suit property as they are the purchaser since way back in 1988 and they have been in occupation and therefore, if the present appeal is considered without their assistance, it may cause prejudice to them and therefore, they have sought impleadment under Order 1,