A party can only refuse to have additional parties impleaded against their wishes if those parties are not necessary for effective adjudication as per the Code of Civil Procedure.

JUDGMENT

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. - This judgment shall dispose two writ petitions identical in nature and between the same parties.

2. In both the writ petitions the petitioner (the plaintiff) challenges an order dated 14.11.2022 allowing the application for impleading subsequent transferees and a lessee filed by the respondent no.1 (defendant no.1).

3. In both the proceedings the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant no.1 alleging that he had misused the trust reposed on him by the plaintiff as he was her grand niece's husband; made her sign on blank papers on the pretext of helping her get compensation for construction of road on her land; preparing false power of attorney dated 20.07.2016 (power of attorney) and gift deed dated 22.01.2019 (gift deed) and sale deed dated 25.04.2016 (sale deed) respectively and disposing of her property.

4. In the proceeding relating to Writ Petition (C) No. 05 of 2023 the suit sought for declaration and cancellation of the registration of the gift deed and the power of attorney as being false, forged and illegal documents. In addition it also sought for correction of land records and re-mutation of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint described the suit property as plot no. 299 measuring an area of 0.1423 hectares under Block Nandok, Ranipool, East Sikkim.

5. In the proceeding relating to Writ Petition (C) No. 06 of 2023 the suit sought for declaration and cancellation of sale deed and the power of attorney as being false, forged and illegal documents. In addition it also sought for correction of land records and re-mutation of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The plaint described the suit property as plot no. 299/P measuring an area of 0.2340 hectares under Block Nandok, Ranipool, East Sikkim.

6. However, in both the plaints there is a Caveat. The plaintiff asserts that due to non-supply of documents pertaining to the illegal transaction of the suit land she is not in a position to give appropriate schedule of the suit land and thus seeks leave to amend the same as and when she receives the certified copies of the documents.

7. A perusal of the power of attorney reflects prima facie, that the plaintiff has constituted the defendant no.1 as an attorney to do various acts on her behalf in respect of her various landed properties including plot no.299. The gift deed involved in Writ Petition (C) No. 05 of 2023 and the sale deed involved in Writ Petition (C) No. 06 of 2023 are purported to be between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. All these documents are alleged to be false by the plaintiff and contested to be genuine by the defendant no.1.

8. The defendant no.1 has filed his written statements in which he has taken the stand that all these transactions were made on the instructions of the plaintiff and she was fully aware about it.

9. The defendant no.1 also filed two applications under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC in both the proceedings seeking addition of additional parties on the ground that pursuant to the execution of power of attorney the land was sold to them and the suit premises are not in his possession. The plaintiff filed the reply to the said applications objecting to the impleadment. The learned Civil Judge allowed the applications filed by the defendant no.1 on the ground that the cancellation of the power of attorney would affect the parties sought to be impleaded by the defendant no.1.

10. The impugned Orders are under challenge by the plaintiff primarily on the ground that as she was the dominus litis nobody else besides the ones she has chosen to sue can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of t