The court held that the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure are exception to the principle that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and a party objected to by him cannot be impleaded in the proceedings.

1. The basic principle that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and a party objected to by him cannot be impleaded in the proceedings, is not an absolute principle or rule. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, are exception to this Rule. The parties to a suit are governed and regulated by the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, which would finally be the guiding factor for the Court to determine, whether an applicant is a necessary or proper party to a suit or not. This is the precise question which arises for consideration in the present revision petition.

2. Before entering into the realm of legal precepts of this proposition it will be appropriate to refer to the facts giving rise to the present revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision No. 1204 of 1997 and Civil Revision No. 1706 of 1996. Admittedly, Kashmiri Lal and Krishan Lal were the joint owners of the property i.e. plot/House No. 456, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar. Both the brothers had inducted their third brother Banarsi Dass somewhere in the year 1972 as a licensee in the part of the premises. Similarly, late Mr. Raj Kumar was also inducted as a licensee in other part of the same premises on the part of the first floor.

3. It is the case of Krishan Lal and his wife Santosh Rani (petitioners herein) that Kashmiri Lal had sold his share in the property by a registered sale-deed dated 7-6-1995 (1985) to Santosh Rani. Consequently, they have become owners of the entire property. They did not wish to continue the licence in favour of Banarsi Dass. They had called upon Banarsi Dass to vacate the portion in his possession of the property in question, which Banarsi Dass failed to do. Consequently, they had instituted a suit for mandatory injunction directing the licensee to hand over the possession of the portion in his occupation, as a licensee which stands terminated. This suit has been registered as a Civil Suit No. 74 of 1995. Still another suit was filed by the same set of plaintiffs against the wife and children of late Raj Kumar on same facts praying that a decree for mandatory injunction be passed against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in that suit for delivering back the possession of the portion in their occupation shown in red colour in the site plan annexed to the plaint. This suit was registered as Civil Suirt No. 326 of 1995.

4. The case of Banarsi Dass defendant in one of the aforestated suits was that Kashmiri Lal had entered into an agreement to sell on 14-8-1984 prior to the alleged sale-deed and had received a consideration of Rs. One Lac at that time. As such Banarsi Dass was in possession in his own right and not a licensee. In addition to this, various objections have been taken in the written statement. During the initial stages of the suits, which are pending, Kashmiri Lal filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, for being impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The case pleaded in the application is that Kashmiri Lal had never executed the sale-deed dated 7-6-1985 and the same is a forged and fabricated document. Kashmiri Lal claimed to continue to be owner of the half share of the property, which he was admittedly having prior to the execution of the alleged sale-deed. The application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code for impleadment by Kashmiri Lal was filed in both the suits. The application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20-1-1997, which has been impugned in the present revisions. The order passed by the learned trial Court on this application in Civil Suit No. 326 of 1995 has given rise to Civil Revision No. 1204 of 1997 while in another suit No. 74 of 1995 has given rise to Civil Revision No. 1706 of 1996.

5. As common question of law based on more or less similar facts arise in both the revision petitions, where the plaintiffs and applicants are even the same, it is considered expedient to dispose of both these revisions by a comm