Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 13.04.2017, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur, whereby petitioner’s application, under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment, has been rejected.

2. The facts, in a nut-shell, are that the plaintiff Ramesh s/o Mohan Singh filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, seeking an order of restraint qua the Municipal Corporation from interfering in his possession and construction raised on the disputed land.

3. The petitioner filed an application dated 13.04.2017 in aforesaid suit proceedings, inter alia, contending that the plaintiff has encroached upon public land, in front of his house. The applicant also indicated therein that the action of removal of encroachment by the Municipal Corporation is a result of his pursuation.

4. Learned Trial Court while rejecting petitioner’s application, observed that petitioner’s presence is not necessary for the proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, plaintiff has not sought any relief against the applicant and that the public road vests in the Municipal Corporation.

5. Mr. Lalit Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailing the order impugned dated 13.04.2017, contended that the Municipal Corporation is taking up the proceedings for removal of the encroachment made by the plaintiff, based on petitioner’s complaint and the disputed encroachment or construction is just in front of his house and as such, petitioner is necessary and proper party. It is contended that though the suit filed by the plaintiff is premature, yet the Municipal Corporation has not raised such objection in the written statement filed by it.

6. I have heard Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and given my thoughtful consideration over the matter.

7. It is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is the ‘dominus litis’ and master of his case. The petitioner, a complainant, can not be permitted to interject in the suit proceedings, which is essentially a ‘lis’ between the plaintiff and the Municipal Corporation. None of petitioner’s individual or property rights are at peril in the subject suit proceedings, as such, petitioner’s impleadment is neither necessary nor warranted.

8. There is no illegality in the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court, which is affirmed and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is rejected.