T. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition for revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiffs against the order, dated 29-6-1959, of the 2nd Civil Judge (Class II), Bhopal, in Civil Suit No. 50 of 1958, deciding certain preliminary issues.

( 2 ) THE non-applicant (defendant) Municipal Board, Bhopal, served a notice on the plaintiff No. 1 to remove a shed from an open site described in the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that the site is owned by plaintiff No. 2 and has been leased to plaintiff No. 1. They alleged that the site did not belong to the Municipal Board, Bhopal, and had not vested in it. Accordingly, they claimed that the notice given by the non-applicant to them to remove the shed is improper and illegal. They prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the structure or removing the materials thereof.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the non-applicant a plea was taken that the land belonged to the State Government who should be impleaded as a defendant. It was also stated that the plaintiffs should ask for a declaration of their title to the land in addition to the injunction claimed.

( 4 ) THE preliminary issues on which the findings of the trial Court are challenged in this revision are as follows : "issue No. (ii): Whether the M. P. Government is a necessary or a proper party in this suit? And Issue No. (iii) : Whether the suit has been undervalued ? If so, effect ?"

( 5 ) ON the first issue, the trial Court has found that the State Government is a proper party in this suit and has ordered the plaintiffs to implead the Government. The reason for this finding is that "as the suit shall warrant an enquiry into the title of the suit land," it is just and proper that the Government should also be present to come forward with the defence. It is significant to observe that the trial Court has not considered the Government to be a necessary party in the sense that failure to implead them would entail the dismissal of the suit. On this point Shri Rampanjwani, counsel for the non-applicant, referred to Krishnaswami Naidu v. Municipal Council Bellary, AIR 1937 Mad 641 where it has been, held that in cases where the plea of jus tertii is set up, it is generally considered desirable to make the person whose title is set up a party to the suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation. It was not, however, decided in that case whether the Court had the power to compel a plaintiff to join a person as defendant against his will in cases where such person is only a proper party. The question was considered in Vithoba v. Secretary of State, AIR 1925 Nag 373 and the law on the point has been stated thus : "ordinarily the plaintiff who comes into Court is the dominus litis and it must always be left to him to choose his opponent against whom he has to claim the relief in the suit. No stranger has any business to intrude into the case and force himself upon a plaintiff who does not want him and who does not claim any relief against him. The plaint tiff is the best judge of his own interest if he seeks relief against a particular individual and impleads that individual as a sole defendant, it is not the look-out of the Court or of any other third person, to see whethersomebody else must be allowed to intrude into the case as a co-defendant, against the plaintiffs will, simply because that third person represents to the Court that he is a person who would be affected by the decision," It is thus clear that the plaintiff cannot be compelled against his wishes to implead anyone as a defendant. He is perfectly at liberty to frame his suit in any way; and as the persons who are not parties to the suit are not bound by the result, it does not at all matter to them as to how the case is decided. If the third party is a necessary defendant, then the suit would be dismissed; otherwise the case would be decided on the merits so far as the parties before the Court are concerned. It was not, ther

Click Here to Read the rest of this document