The plaintiff, as the dominus litis, has the right to choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate, and the court has the discretion to add necessary or proper parties for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceeding.

JUDGMENT

Lok Pal Singh, J. - Instant civil revision, preferred under Section 115 of CPC, is directed against the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora in O.S. No.4 of 2015 Mrs. Rewa Pande vs. Ramesh, whereby the application moved by the revisionist/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC for impleading Himadri Pande, has been dismissed.

2. Factual matrix of the case is that the revisionist/plaintiff being the co-owner of the suit property situated at Mohalla Malla Kasoon, Almora, filed the suit being O.S. No.4 of 2015 against the respondent/defendant in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Almora for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction as well as mesne profit stating therein that the suit property was given to the defendant on license with the condition that whenever required the license will be terminated orally by plaintiff's husband. On 05.01.2014, the license was orally revoked but despite that the defendant has not vacated the licensed portion of the suit property. Respondent/defendant contested the suit and filed his written statement. On the basis of pleadings of parties, trial court framed necessary issues in the suit. Meanwhile, the revisionist/plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading Mr. Himadri Pande. Respondent/defendant filed his reply and objections to the application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court, vide order dated 06.02.2019, dismissed the impleadment application. The revisionist/plaintiff preferred a review application against the impugned order dated 06.02.2019, which also got dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2019.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the view taken by the trial court in rejecting the impleadment application is patently erroneous as the revisionist/plaintiff is the dominus litis and he has a right to choose his opponents.

5. From the perusal of the impleadment application, it transpires that the revisionist/plaintiff has sought impleadment of Mr. Himadri Pande S/o Late Sri Anil Kumar Pande, as co-defendant in the suit, in view of the fact that the respondent/defendant has taken mutually destructive pleas in his written statement that he was inducted in possession of the suit property by Mr. Anil Kumar Pande and his right of ownership of the suit property has matured by virtue of adverse possession over the suit property. It is stated in the application that Mr. Himadari Pande is the only surviving legal heir of Late Sri Anil Kumar Pande, and therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit.

6. The general rule regarding impleading of parties is that the person, who is having a right or an interest in the suit property, can be impleaded as a party and it is for the plaintiff as the dominus litis to choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and he cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. This proposition of law has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following paragraphs in the case of Baluram Vs. P. Chellathangam and others, 2015 13 SCC 579 .

"13. In Mumbai International Airport, 2010 7 SCC 417 this Court observed:

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