IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure when considering applications for impleadment.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 23.06.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 59 of 2018 titled Hira Chand and others vs. Om Prakash and others, whereby the application of the petitioners herein for impleadment as party defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

2. Plaintiffs (respondents No. 1 to 3 herein) have filed Civil Suit No. 59 of 2018 before the learned Civil Judge, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. for the following relief:-

“It be declared that plaintiffs are owners in possession of land measuring 00-18- bighas out of total land measuring 01-15-0 01-13-05 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 2266 and 2268 Kitas-2, contained in Khata/ Khatouni No. 118 min/288 and 298 min (old), 7/12 and 2 min/5( new), situated at Phati Baran Kothi Baragarh Teltsil Manali, District Kullu, HP as per the sale deed No.508 dated 11.09.975 qua the share of late Sh. Parsa by excluding the alleged wrongly entered share of late Sh. Safra and revenue entries qua the suit land are liable to be entered in the revenue record and the review of mutation No. 1164 having been done by the Collector, Kullu is wrong and illegal to that extent and liable to be partly by passing a decree for declaration;”

3. Initially, respondent No.4 herein was impleaded as defendant, however, during the pendency, respondents No. 5 to 10 herein were also impleaded as defendants on the asking of plaintiffs and the plaint was also amended.

4. The petitioners herein are the successors of Sh. Safra Ram, who originally was recorded as co-owner of the suit land, which also is the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 59 of 2018. In a litigation inter se Sh. Safra Ram and his other co-owners, though the right of Sh. Safra Ram to co-own the said land was not upheld, yet he was held to be in possession of the suit land. The said litigation had culminated vide judgment dated 29.07.2008 passed in RSA No. 333 of 1995 by this Court.

5. The petitioners herein, on the above premise of having possession of the suit land of Civil Suit No. 59 of 2018, approached the learned trial Court for being impleaded as parties. The prayer of the petitioners herein was opposed by the plaintiffs and accordingly the learned trial Court dismissed the application of petitioners herein for impleadment vide impugned order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

7. The impugned order reveals that application for impleadment has been dismissed by the learned trial Court in the following terms:-

“6. The case of the applicants is that they are necessary party to the lis, but the respondents/plaintiffs have intentionally not arrayed them as a party. It is also the case of the applicants that the present suit is a collusive suit.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its recent decision titled as Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Ors. v. Bibhu Parshad Sahoo and Ors. Civil Appeal No.6370 of (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 773 has held that the plaintiff is dominus litis. Unless the court suo moto directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order I Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendant against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendant against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

8. In the case in hand, since, the plaintiffs have objected the impleadment of the applicants as defendants, in view of above binding precedent, the present application is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs. The application stands disposed off. It be tagged with the main case file after due completion.”

8. The impugned order further reveals that no other reason or ground has been considered for rejection of the prayer made by the petitioners herein.

9. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of order 1 reads as under:-

“