The plaintiff has the authority as dominus litis to seek impleadment of parties, underlining the procedural prerogatives in civil suits.

J U D G M E N T

Aggrieved by Ext P8 common order passed in I.A.Nos.1567 & 1568/2021 in O.S.No.47/2015 (Exts P4 and P5) by the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Palakkad, the first defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondents 1 to 3 in the original petition are the impleading petitioners in I.A.No.1567/2021 and the fourth respondent is the plaintiff and the respondents 5 to 7 are the defendants

2 to 4 in the suit.

2. The antecedent facts, relevant for the determination of the original petition and leading to Ext P8 common order, are:

(i) The fourth defendant has filed the suit for partition against the petitioner and the fifth respondent.

(ii) The petitioner has resisted the suit through Ext P2 written statement, inter alia, contending that the property is his self-acquired property. The fifth respondent also filed Ext P3 written statement.

(iii)The parties went to trial. The fourth respondent and his witnesses were examined. The case was posted for the defendants evidence.

(iv) At this juncture, the respondents 1 to 3, filed Ext P4 application, to get themselves impleaded in the suit and Ext P5 application, for the consequential amendments to the plaint. The applications were opposed by the petitioner through Exts P6 and P7 counter statements.

(v) The court below, by the impugned Ext P8 common order, allowed Exts P4 and P5.

(vi) Ext P8 common order is manifestly wrong and unsustainable in law. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri. R.Manikantan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P. Viswanathan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Praveen K. Joy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7.

4. The point is, is there any illegality in Ext P8 common order?.

5. The fourth respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner and the fifth respondent for a decree of partition.

6. Later, the respondents 6 and 7 were impleaded on the assertion that a portion of the plaint schedule property was acquired by them to draw an electricity transmission line.

7. While the suit was progressing, the respondents 1 to 3 filed Exts P4 and P5 applications, to get themselves impleaded and to carry out consequential amendments to the plaint, which were allowed by Ext P8 common order.

8. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not challenged Ext P8 common order. On the contrary, it is the first defendant who has come to this Court.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court inSudhamayee Pattnaik and Others V. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others [2022 SCC Online SC 1234] has succinctly held that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and has a right to seek impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the courts can suo-motu implead any person in a proceeding.

10. Going by the law laid down above, the pleadings and materials on record, especially the fact that the court below has exercised the powers and has impleaded the respondents 1 to 3 as additional defendants in the suit, I am of the definite view that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impleadment. There is no error in Ext P8 common order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The original petition is devoid of any merits and is hence, dismissed.