Dominus Litis Cannot Be Used to Block Impleadment of Proper Party: Gauhati High Court

Gauhati High Court has firmly held that a plaintiff’s right to choose defendants—the principle of dominus litis—must yield to the court’s discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure when a proper or necessary party seeks impleadment.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, presiding over a single bench, dismissed a revision petition filed by Kimi Sarda challenging a trial court order that added a tenant as a defendant in her title suit. The ruling underscores that possession of suit property can make a person a proper party, and that the trial court cannot be faulted for exercising its statutory discretion.

The Dispute

The case originated from Title Suit No. 138/2021 filed by Kimi Sarda before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 4, Cachar, Silchar. She sought a declaration of her right, title and interest over a property, along with eviction of the defendants and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, Krishna Sharma filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, claiming that he had taken a room in the suit property on monthly rent from one of the existing defendants and was running a retail electric goods shop there under a tenancy agreement.

The trial court allowed the impleadment application on September 10, 2023, prompting Sarda to approach the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Arguments Before the High Court

Sarda’s counsel, Mr. S. Choudhury, argued that the plaintiff, being dominus litis, had the absolute right to choose whom to sue. He contended that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between his client and the respondent, and that if a decree was eventually passed against the tenant’s licensor, the respondent could always approach the executing court under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. He relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and NAK Engineering Company Private Limited vs. Tarun Keshrichand Shah .

On the other hand, senior counsel Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, appearing for respondent Krishna Sharma, countered that the trial court had rightly exercised its discretion. He submitted that the respondent was in actual possession of the suit property since 2000, had taken electricity connections, and was paying rent into court after the defendant refused to accept it. He argued that the suit was collusive and that impleadment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to enable effective adjudication.

Legal Principles and Precedents

Justice Kalita turned to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited , which drew a clear distinction between necessary parties and proper parties. The Court quoted the apex court’s observation:

“A ‘necessary party’ is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree can be passed at all by the court. A ‘proper party’ is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute.”

Applying this test, the High Court noted that there was no dispute that the respondent was in possession of a room in the suit premises and was running a shop there. His presence, therefore, would enable the trial court to completely and effectively adjudicate the matter. The court held:

“As such, there is no doubt that his presence in the suit as a defendant would enable the Trial Court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute. As such, not to speak of whether he is a necessary party or not, there is no dispute that Respondent No. 1 is certainly a proper party in the suit.”

Key Observations

The High Court firmly rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s dominus litis right could override the statutory discretion vested in the trial court. It observed:

“The general rule with regard to impleadment of parties, that the plaintiff being dominus litis may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate, gives way to the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead either necessary or proper parties, as the case may be.”

On the scope of Article 227 review, the court reminded litigants that supervisory jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly:

“It is a well-settled proposition of law that the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Such exercise may be justified if the court below has exercised its discretion with arbitrariness, capriciously and without following principles of natural justice.”

Since the trial court had given valid reasons and acted within its discretion, the High Court found no ground to interfere.

Final Verdict

The High Court dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim stay on the suit proceedings. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

The judgment reinforces the principle that possession of suit property is a significant factor in determining whether an applicant qualifies as a proper party, and that the trial court’s discretion on impleadment will not be lightly disturbed by higher courts.