A party cannot be compelled to litigate against a party with whom they have no claim or interest, and impleading should only be done when necessary for a complete adjudication of the questions involved in the suit.

1. An order rejecting the application to implead an additional" defendant is challenged by the first defendant in revision.

2. First defendant is a partnership firm and other defendants are its partners. Suit was filed by the Andhra Bank for realisation of amounts advanced under various heads of loans. Contention was that the advance was guaranteed by the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) and therefore the Corporation is a necessary patty. A separate application filed for that purpose was opposed both by the plaintiff as well as ECGC.

3. Admittedly the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendants is independent of the agreement (Ext.B1) between plaintiff and ECGC to which defendants are not parties. There seems to be some independent transaction between defendants and ECGC in which plaintiff is not interested and is not a party. The contention of the defendants that ECGC guaranteed the advances to them by the plaintiff does not appear prima facie to be correct. Such a claim was denied both by the plaintiff and ECGC and the contention is that the transaction between ECGC and defendants is entirely different and unconnected with the plaint transaction. The ECGC has issued a Whole Packing credit guarantee to the plaintiff Bank under which when the whole or any portion of the amount due from the defendants is ultimately found irrecoverable after exhausting all remedies independently, there will be a specific liability for the ECGC That is rather in the form of an insurance unconnected with the transaction between plaintiff and defendants and the relief claimed against the defendants in the suit.

4. Plaintiff has not made any claim in the suit against ECGC and plaintiff does not want to implead the Corporation or ask for any relief. The ultimate claim, if any, of the plaintiff against ECGC is independent of the plaint transaction by which defendants are exclusively liable. Liability of the defendants towards the plaintiff is also independent of the claim of the plaintiff against ECGC and also independent of the claim of the defendants, if any, towards ECGC The only relevant factor is that incase the plaintiff becomes unable to enforce the liability against defendants after exhausting all remedies, plaintiff may get a cause of action against ECGC Under such circumstances the question is whether the ECGC is a necessary or proper party.

5. There is one other aspect. The suit was filed in 1984. Written statement was also filed in 1984. After settlement of issues the suit was included in the special list and it is being tried. It was at that stage that the impleading application was filed. There is great force in the contention that the application is intended to protract the trial of the suit.

6. 0.1, CPC deals with parties to suits R.1 and 3 specify as to who may be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. Even in cases covered by R.1 and 3 courts ere entitled to order separate trials as enjoined by R.2 and 3A. All who could be joined as plaintiffs need pot necessarily be plaintiffs and the same is the case with defendants also. All persons interested in the subject-matter need not necessarily be plaintiffs or defendants.

7. Plaintiff is the dominus lites. He is the person who approaches the court for relief on payment of court fee. He is the master of the litigation and the best judge of his own interest. It should be left to him to choose his opponent from whom he has to seek the relief, It is none of the lookout of the court or the defendant to see whether he should be asked to claim relief against other persons when he is not bound to do so. Normally he cannot be compelled to fight with persons against whom he does not want to fight. The contrary could be had only in exceptional cases and we are at the question what those exceptional cases are.

8. It is open to the court to implead a new party as defendant even against the consent of the plaintiff and inspite of his opposition in a fit and proper case. In such cas