The plaintiff is not compelled to litigate against parties from whom no relief is claimed.

Jasbir Singh, J. - The present Civil Revision has been filed by Ramesh Kumar and others against the order passed by Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak dated 17th August, 1983, vide which their application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleading them as defendants in the suit filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners in possession of the property which is shown as ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint. Relief of injunction against the Municipal Committee from interfering in their property was also claimed in the said suit. In the plaint, it was stated that they have purchased plot No. 5 which is a part and parcel of Khasra No. 10114, 8958/2967 as per the revenue records. It has further been stated that when they moved application for sanctioning of the building plans, it was returned with the objection that on the north there exists 50 feet wide street and no 30 feet as has been shown in the building plan. Objection was removed. Under compulsion the amended building plan was submitted and ultimately the same was approved. It was further stated that they have raised a wall on their own land and have not made any encroachment, but the respondent Municipal Committee, Rohtak was unnecessarily issuing them notices and is now threatening to demolish the wall raised by them in their own property.

2. In the said suit, Municipal Committee, Rohtak through its Executive Officer, has been impleaded as respondent. The Municipal Committee controverted all the allegations of the plaintiff/respondents No. 1 and 2 by filing a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was moved by Ram Singh Sharma and Sita Ram with the prayer that since they are the necessary parties, they may be ordered to be impleaded as such in the pending suit. The said application has been declined by the court below, by opining that since the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the applicants/petitioners, the Municipal Committee is vigorously contesting the suit and, as such, there is no necessity to implead the applicants/petitioners as defendants in the said litigation. This order passed by the Court below is under challenge.

3. The counsel for the petitioners has contended that the dispute pertains to the encroachment on street by the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the officials of the Municipal Committee are openly conniving with them. So, under these circumstances, it is feared that the Municipal Committee will not put up a proper defence and will not contest the suit in a proper manner and if ultimately the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, it is the petitioners who will be the real sufferers, since they are using the said street and are residing in the vicinity nearby. It was also stated that they are the necessary parties to the litigation.

4. As against this, counsel for the respondents has contended that the plaintiff is a master of his own suit and he cannot be compelled to litigate against other persons, especially, when he is not claiming any relief against the petitioners. It has further been contended that applicants/petitioners have already filed a Civil Suit titled as Ram Singh and another v. Municipal Committee, Rohtak etc., in which the general public has been impleaded as a defendant and in the said suit, the subject matter relates to the same road and encroachment as is involved in the present litigation.

5. The contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioners do not seem to be correct because in the present suit, no relief is being claimed against them. The litigation is with the Municipal Committee and the Committee is contesting the said suit and nothing has been brought on record to strengthen the apprehension of the petitioners that the officials of the committee will connive with the respondent/plaintiff which will affect the