Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

The present appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against an order dated 10.04.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 3239 of 2018 by which the learned Single Judge has allowed the application filed by present respondent No.1 for joining as party respondent in the main petition.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Dipan Desai for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.K. Jani for the respondent authorities.

3. The present appellant, who is the original petitioner, has filed Special Civil Application No.3239 of 2018 in which the appellant petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority in his favour. In the said petition, the petitioner has not joined present respondent No.1 as party respondent and, therefore, the present respondent No.1 filed Civil Application for joining him as party respondent in the main petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the said application and, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant - petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

4. Learned advocate Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the appellant - petitioner has mainly submitted that present respondent No.1 - applicant contested the election of the Legislative Assembly Seat of Morva (Hadaf). In the said election, the appellant has been elected. Instead of challenging the election of the appellant, present respondent No.1 applicant submitted representation before the respondent authorities for cancellation of the Caste Certificate of the appellant on the ground that the said certificate is false and in fact, the appellant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe category. The respondent authorities cancelled the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the appellant. It is contended that respondent No.1 applicant is not necessary or property party to the proceedings and he has not suffered any legal injury. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have joined him as party respondent in the petition.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri would submit that if respondent No.1 - applicant is aggrieved by the result of the election of the Legislative Assembly, he could have filed Election Petition under Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 before this Court. Such Election Petition is required to be filed within a period of forty-five days from the date of declaration of the result. However, respondent No.1 - applicant has failed to file such Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant, instead he filed the application for joining party in the petition filed by the appellant. However, the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid important aspect.

4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Champaneri further submits that the applicant has not suffered any legal injury and, therefore, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved person. He, therefore, cannot claim that he may be joined as party in the petition filed by the present appellant.

4.3 Respondent No.1 applicant has not participated in the inquiry held against the appellant for cancellation of the Caste Certificate nor he was a party before the respondent authority-committee. He was not heard and, therefore, when the appellant-petitioner has challenged the order passed by the respondent authority-committee, respondent No.1-applicant cannot be considered as necessary or proper party in the proceedings filed by the appellant - petitioner.

4.4 Learned advocate for the appellant contended that it is well accepted principle of dominus litis that the person has right to choose whom he should arraign as party and, therefore, he cannot be asked to join a person as party, who is not an aggrieved person. He submitted that the learned Single Judge has committ