In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not directly involved.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.K. Dash, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. S.P. Satapathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 1 to 3.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 01.09.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bhubaneswar passed in C.S. No.1258 of 2023, wherein the prayer of the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 3 being the Plaintiffs filed the suit against present Opposite Parties 4 to 6 praying for permanent injunction simplicitor. For better appreciation the prayer made in the plaint is re-produced below:-

“(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction permanently injuncting the Defendants, their agents, relatives or any other person representing on their behalf from entering in to the suit land and from creating any disturbance to the peaceful possession of the Plaintiffs.

b. Cost of the suit be decreed c. And /or any other relief(s) may be passed as deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble court in the interest of justice.”

4. The Defendants though appeared, but did not file their written statement as submitted by learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs adduced their evidence and after closure of their evidence, the Defendants also did not adduce any evidence and the suit was posted for argument. At the stage of the argument, present Petitioners filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. praying them to be impleaded as Defendants in the suit on the ground that they are the mother and sister of the Defendants and also in possession of the suit land. The said prayer of the present Petitioners has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the Plaintiffs do not seek for any relief against these Petitioners and in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor where declaration of right, title is not claimed, present Petitioners are not necessary parties.

5. It is settled that the Plaintiff is the masters of the suit and he is the dominus litis. The provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. authorizes the court to add any party to the suit at any stage of the proceeding whose presence is found necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate the issues involved.

6. The principles for impleading a party to the suit has been well discussed in Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417. It has been held that:-

“13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (“the Code”, for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below:

“10. (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.”

14. The said provisio