JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner, who is plaintiff in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction instituted in the Court of learned Munsiff, Katra (hereinafter "the trial Court" for short) has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested by virtue of Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing and setting aside the order dated 24th July, 2020 passed by the trial Court, whereby and whereunder an application moved by respondent No. 7 seeking his impleadment as party defendant in the suit titled Deepak Kumar v. Mithun Khajuria and others has been allowed.

2. The impugned order has been assailed primarily on the following grounds:-

a) The petitioner-plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be forced or compelled to array anybody as party defendant and to litigate against such person against whom he may have no cause of action. The trial Court has not appreciated the fact that respondent No. 7 has no right, title or interest in the subject matter of suit and, therefore, cannot be permitted to intermeddle in the litigation at the instance of others.

(b) The trial Court also did not appreciate that unnecessary presence of respondent No. 7 in the suit would only protract the trial and delay the disposal of the suit.

3. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing strong reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 5522-5523 of 2019 decided on 17.07.2019 submits that the petitioner being dominus litis is entitled to decide the parties, he should be litigating against and the civil court cannot compel him to implead someone as party, more so, when the plaintiff has no grievance or cause of action against such party.

4. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Thakur learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that given the fact that it is respondent No. 7, who is in actual physical possession of the suit property, it is in the interest of justice and for effective adjudication of the lis to array respondent No. 7 as party defendant. This would also avoid multiplicity of litigation, contends Mr. Thakur.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It would be necessary to first set out the provisions of Oder-1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which are reproduced hereunder:-

"10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.-

(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add parties.- 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 settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended. Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copes of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.

(5) Subject to the provisions of the [Indian Limitation Act