1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 23.3.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No. 19A/2016 by the learned XIVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior (MP) whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as “CPC') for impleading him as a defendant in the suit has been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner's father namely Late Shri Laxmi Chand Baraiya was tenant of the plaintiff and was carrying on business in the name of Firm M/s Motilal Laxmi Chand Baraiya. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction of the shop against the brother of the petitioner. Written statement has been filed by Heeralal Baraiya/respondent No. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a necessary and proper party and is in possession of the shop and carrying on business from the tenanted premises, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the suit. The reply was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 to the said application. Counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner's father Late Shri Laxmi Chand Baraiya had executed a registered will dated 27.7.1965 in which the right in the business has also been given to the petitioner. The document is a registered will and more than 30 years old document. Learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments rejected the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC without considering the fact that petitioner is in possession and carrying on business and is a necessary party, therefore, the petitioner has no other alternative but to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the respondent No. 2 is carrying on the business as a proprietorship Firm M/s Motilal Laxmi Chand Baraiya and is in possession of shop as a tenant and he has filed the present suit for eviction of the shop against the brother of the petitioner which is a proprietorship concern. The petitioner has not filed any document/partnership deed to substantiate his claim that he is also the co-owner of the firm. It is also submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is not a necessary party and if he is allowed to be added in the suit, the scope of the suit for eviction and recovery of rent would be enlarged and it would be converted into a suit for title. The plaintiff being dominus litus, he cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to file, unless, it is compulsion of the rule of law.

5. While rejecting the application, learned trial Court has considered the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 in which it is clearly stated that he is proprietor in the firm and is carrying on business from the shop. The petitioner has not filed any document/partnership deed to substantiate his claim that he is the partner in the Firm. Since the present suit relates to eviction, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party.

6. The question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is a necessary party in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court and secondly, presence of the petitioner is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit though no relief has been claimed against the petitioner. The power to add the parties emanates from Order 1 rule 10 CPC. For the purpose of convenience Order 1 rule 10 CPC reproduced below :

“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the Suit has been instituted thr