S. Sankarasubban

1. This C.R.P. is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 936 of 1999 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Palakkad against the order passed in I.A. No. 324 of 2000. That application was filed for impleading under O. I R.10 CPC by the respondents 1 and 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from defendants 1 to 3. According to the plaintiff, the property was obtained by a lease executed by his grandfather. Thereafter patta was obtained from the Land Tribunal. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he was in possession of the property and defendants 1 and 2 trespassed into the property for the purpose of conducting toddy shop. It was at this time the suit was filed. The defendants in their written statement contended that permission was given to them by the present impleading petitioners and they are in possession of the property under them. It is at this juncture respondents 1 and 2 filed impleading petition. It was contended that the property belonged to the first respondent and he has settled it on the second respondent. It is further stated that there was a suit filed by the present petitioner as O. S. No. 84 of 1981 before the Alathur Munsiff's Court in respect of the same property for title and possession against first respondent and in that suit the possession and title was found against the plaintiff. The court below after hearing both sides allowed the impleading application. It is against that the present revision is filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. V. Giri submitted that the order impleading respondents 1 and 2 is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, plaintiff has sought relief against defendants 1 and 3 in the suit and he has not sought for recovery against the impleading petitioners. The plaintiff is going to succeed if he is able to prove his title and possession. The third parties can come in only if they feel aggrieved by the decree to be passed. It is only at that time that the impleading petitioners can approach the court, if they are actually in possession. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff is the dominus litus. If he does not want a relief against a person, that person cannot be a party to the suit. Further, he submitted that, since the defendants are claiming under the present impleading petitioners at the time of evidence, the impleading petitioners can be witnesses to show that they have got title to the properties. Hence, it is not necessary to implead respondents 1 and 2 as additional defendants. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, Sri. Mayankutty Mather submitted that there is no question of jurisdiction involved. Under O. I, R.10(2) C.P.C., the court can implead a person if he will be affected by the orders passed. It is the discretion to be exercised by the Court below and in this case the discretion has been exercised properly. Further he submitted that, the policy under O. I. R.10(2) is to avoid multiplicity of suits. He contended that plaintiff had filed earlier suit against the present respondents 1 and 2 where he failed to prove his title and possession. So far as the defendants 1 to 3 in this case are concerned they have got permission from the impleading petitioners to conduct the toddy shop. Actually, they are licencees under impleading petitioners. Hence, the impleading petitioners are necessary parties to the suit.

3. O. I R.10(2) CPC states that 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 se