The absolute choice of the plaintiff to seek relief against a particular person and the lack of jurisdictional error committed by the trial court in rejecting the petitioner's application influenced the court's decision.

1. -Heard on admission.A suit was filed by Mohd. Baksh against State of Rajasthan before learned Civil Judge (1I)), Makrana for permanent injunction that the place lying vacant on the side of the mines of the plaintiff be not allotted to anybody and that the mine of the plaintiff be extended. In this suit petitioner-Haji Abdul Razzak filed a petition u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC to implead him as a party. On an earlier occasion such an application was dismissed by order dated 14.3.1996 by trial Court as the petitioner had not appeared to press for the application. The second application was instituted by the petitioner alleging that a kiln was situated on the land which is said to be on the side of the plaintiffs mine since 1963 and it was in his possession and that in case he was not heard his rights would be affected. Learned Civil Judge, after hearing all the parties, dismissed the application.Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's right are to be affected, therefore, he had prayed to be impleaded and that the order of learned trial judge should be set aside.

2. This Court in Nijamuddin v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1994 (2) RLR page 132 , held that it was an absolute choice of plaintiff to seek relief against a particular person or persons and this choice cannot be allowed to be curtailed at the behest of defendant. It was held that the defendant has no locus standi to file revision against rejection of his application u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC. There is no doubt about it that there is absolute choice of the plaintiff to seek relief against a particular person. Plaintiff did not make petitioner a party nor did defendants raised any objection in the written statements of the petitioner being a necessary party. However, the petitioner suo motu applied to make him a party in the suit. The rejection of his application is no jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. In The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad & Anr. v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase & Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, AIR 1973 SC page 76 , it was held that the High Court should not interfere in such orders even if the order is right or wrong or in accordance with law or not unless it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

3. I do not find any such error in the order of learned trial judge, therefore, there is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed. However, if any right of the petitioner is going to be affected, he may take recourse of law, if so advised.Revision rejected.

*******