Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Plaintiff Being ‘Dominus Litis’ Can’t Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Plaintiff Being ‘Dominus Litis’ Can’t Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief

Case: Kranti Arora V. Digjam Ltd & O.P. Khaitan (HUF)

Coram: Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain

Case No.: CM(M) NO. 51983 OF 2018

Court Observation: “Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance.”

“A third party is entitled to be impleaded as necessary party if that party is likely to suffer any legal injury due to outcome of the suit. The doctrine of dominus litis should not be over stretched in impleading the parties. The court can order a person to be impleaded as necessary party if his presence is required to decide real matter in dispute effectively. Merely because the, plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are having wide amplitude in operation.”

“The issue of impleadment of the applicant as necessary party in present suit as such has already been adjudicated finally and the applicant cannot be allowed to raise issue of impleadment again and again particularly at appellate stage. The applicant can also not be allowed to change its stand regarding imlpeadment first by opposing application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and thereafter by filing application for its impleadment which is under disposal and it would not be in interest of justice. The applicant has already initiated appropriate legal proceedings to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the flat in suit for possession and damages filed against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of the Additional District Judge and Appeal has already been disposed of.”

“The presence of applicant is not necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in present litigation. The applicant as such cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. The application under disposal is also filed after unduly and unexplained delay. The pleas taken by the applicant in application under disposal and the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the applicant in support of the application under disposal are without are without any legal basis.”

Previous Posts

Production Of Succession Certificate Mandatory When Decree Holder Dies Only If Decree Amount Comes Under ‘Debts’ Or ‘Securities’: Kerala High Court

Madras High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA Over Facebook Posts Allegedly Instigating Muslims To Act Against Hindus

Scope Of Interference In Criminal Appeal By Special Leave Under Article 136 Of Constitution: Supreme Court Explains

Primary Object of Habeas Corpus Petition For Child’s Custody Is To Determine In Whose Custody The Best Interest of the Child Will Be Advanced: Supreme Court

By Merely Denying Landlord-Tenant Relationship, Defendant In Eviction Suit Can’t Enjoy Property During Pendency Without Depositing Rent: Supreme Court

Adjudicating Authority Cannot Substitute Any Commercial Term Of Resolution Plan Approved By Committee Of Creditors Download Judgement