JUDGMENT :

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. The petitioner sought deletion of its name from array of defendants, but the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019, constraining it to file the instant revision petition.

2. Respondent No.1 Mathu Ram filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner and other defendants being Divisional Manager Forest, Forest Working Division, Shimla and Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla Forest Division (Urban), Khalini, Shimla, before the trial Court.

3. After being served, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion of its name from the array of the defendants on the ground that the present matter pertains to Forest Department and the entire record in this regard stands transferred to it in view of the fact that the State Government has withdrawn the control of forest from the purview of Municipal Corporation, Shimla.

4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by according the following reasons as contained in paras 6 and 7, which read as under:

“6. Heard. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has been impleaded as defendant No.1 in the present case. The perusal of prayer clause of the plaint shows that a relief of mandatory injunction and compensation and damages has been sought against all the defendants. Moreover, perusal of plaint shows that specific averments have been made against defendant No.1. As such, it would not be appropriate to end litigation against defendant No.1 at the threshold and the matter shall be decided on merits.

7. The applicant is a necessary party in the present suit as per the pleadings of plaintiff. Therefore, Court is of the considered view that at this stage the applicant shall not be deleted from the arrayed parties and the matter shall be decided on merits against all the defendants. As such, application is dismissed. Put up with main case file.”

5. Even though respondent No.1//plaintiff has been served, however, there is no appearance on his behalf.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and have gone through the material placed on record.

7. There can be no doubt that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and would certainly have a right to implead anyone against whom he or she has a cause of action or anyone against whom he or she seeks a relief. But the party, who is so impleaded, should satisfy atleast anyone of the two tests viz., that of being a necessary or atleast a proper party.

8. The test to be applied for determining the right of a party to implead another, in a pending suit or other proceeding, may be crystallized into the following broad categories:-

(a) If without his presence no effective and complete adjudication could be made;

(b) If his presence is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute though no relief is claimed against him;

(c) If there is a cause of action against him;

(d) If the relief sought in the suit or other proceedings is likely to be made binding on him;

(e) If the ultimate outcome of the proceedings is likely to affect him adversely;

(f) If his role is really that of a “necessary witness” but is sought to be camouflaged as a “necessary party”;

The above tests are not exhaustive and at times, even if a person falls under anyone of the above categories, the Court may still refuse to implead him.

9. Equally settled is the proposition that the plaintiff being dominus litus can always contend that he cannot be compelled to implead a party not of his choice. But then, it is also true that the plaintiff cannot compel a party, who is neither a necessary or proper party to defend the litigation. The right of the plaintiff to be dominus litus is always subservient to the power vested with the Court to implead and delete anyone, who is considered to be a necessary or proper party or not necessary or proper, as the case may be, to do complete justice in the matter.

10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be noticed that the specific