( 1. ) THE plaintiff Durga Prasad filed a civil suit in the Court of the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, under section 8 of the Madhya pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 for a declaration that the entry No. 305 in the register of Public Trusts was void and that the house in suit did not belong to any public trust. The suit has been filed against the Registrar of Public Trusts, jabalpur and the State of Madhya Pradesh as defendants. In this suit, the applicant Baijnath made an application under rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being added as a party defendant to the suit on the ground that he was a necessary or, at least, a proper party because-

(i) the Registrar had given his finding under section 6 of the Act on an inquiry initiated at his instance,

(ii) his presence would be necessary for adducing evidence against the contentions of the plaintiff,

(iii) he was a person interested in the trust and had moved an application to the Registrar for the registration of the trust, and

(iv) his presence would be necessary for a decision of the matters in controversy in the suit.

( 2. ) THE application was opposed by the plaintiff, and the trial Court dismissed the application holding, inter alia,-

(a) that the presence of the applicant was not necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit;

(b) that the fact that the presence of the applicant was necessary for adducing evidence did not make hern either a necessary or a proper party; and

(c) that the applicant, beyond stating that he was interested in the trust, had not stated how he was interested in it.

( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction in dismissing the application of the applicant for a joinder and that he should be ordered to be joined in exercise of my re-visional powers under section 115 of the Code of civil Procedure.

( 4. ) IN my opinion, there is no merit in this contention, which must accordingly fail.

( 5. ) THE suit of the plaintiff is under section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh public Trusts Act, 1951, which reads as follows: A

" (1) Any working trustee or person having interest in a public trust or any property found to be trust property, aggrieved by any finding of the Registrar under section 6 may, within six months from the date of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 7, institute a suit in a Civil Court to have such finding set aside or modified.

(2) In every such suit, the Civil Court shall give notice to the State Government through the Registrars and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit. "

The plaintiff has joined both the Registrar and the State Government as party defendants to the suit; and though the State Government had an option to be made a party or not, it has, it appears, impliedly exercised its option in favour of its joinder. The Act does not in terms say that a person, who had initiated the inquiry under section 5 of the Act, should be made a party, nor does it say that every person interested in the trust property should be made a party defendant to the suit.

( 6. ) IT is settled law that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and that generally it is for him to choose against whom he shall fight, and that he cannot be compelled to fight against some person not of his choice unless such a process is required by any positive rule of law.

( 7. ) THE plaintiff in the instant case does not claim any relief against the applicant nor does he choose to implead him as a party defendant to the suit. The provisions of the Act also do not enjoin his joinder as a matter of positive law.

( 8. ) THE question, therefore, that arises for consideration in this application for revision is whether the plaintiff in this case should be compelled to "litigate not only against the defendants of his choice against whom he has prayed fo