Plaintiff Alone Not Dominus Litis, Principle May Apply Even To Intervenor Who Takes Control Of Suit: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that the theory of Dominus Litis should not be over-stretched in the matter of impleading parties.

“The theory of dominus litus (Master of a suit) should not be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, because it is the duty of the court to ensure that for deciding the real matter in dispute if a person is a necessary party, the court can order such person to be impleaded. Merely because the plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded.”

The Division Bech of Justice K. Lakshman and K. Sujana has also distinguished between a Dominus Litis, who is the master of the suit/ the plaintiff and the doctrine of dominus litis, which applies to any individual really and directly interested in the suit as a party.

“Thus dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs. This also means that plaintiff is the master of the suit. The doctrine of dominus litis is applied to one, who though not originally a party, has made himself such, by intervention or otherwise, and has assumed the entire control and responsibility for one side and it is treated by the Court as liable for costs and a person who is really and directly interested in the suit as a party.”

The Writ petition that gave rise to the present appeal, was filed by the petitioner, praying from the Court directions to the Deputy Collector for the issuance of regularisation certificate in furtherance of Section 5A(4) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971.

The appellants filed an implead petition in the above-mentioned writ, contending that they were the owners of the suit property. The petition was dismissed by the single judge, holding that since the suit filed by the appellants for partition before the trial court had been dismissed, and the appeal was pending, the appellants were not proper and necessary parties to the writ.

The claim of the appellants was that they were the owners of 349 acres of land, out of which, 49 acres of land was declared as excess and declared to the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularization) Act, 1976 (for short, the UL (C&R) Act and the remaining belong to them. They claimed that the writ petitioners had fraudulently created a sale deed for an extent of 81 acres, by forging the signature of the original pattadar and perpetuated the crime by validating the unregistered sale deed to an extent of 19 acres.

The appellants contended that the partition proceedings were continuous proceedings. They also filed proceedings issued by the Special Officer and competent authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Hyderabad, holding that the revalidation in favour of the writ petitioners was in violation of the UL (C&R) Act.

The appellants also relied on the Government orders by way of which, an Enquiry Committee was constituted under the Joint Collector to probe into criminal activities of the writ petitioners in getting the regularization of the sale deeds and creating forged Government Orders for regularization under fraudulent unregistered sale deeds.

The appellants lastly contended that the stand taken by the writ petitioners was contradictory to the stand taken by the writ petitioners in various related suits, and that relief under section 5(A) of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 could only be granted when there was no dispute to the execution of the document.

The writ petitioners/ respondents contended that the appellants had not challenged the proceedings initiated under section 5A if the 1971 Act, despite being fully aware of the same and could not, now try to interdict a consequent relief sought by the petitioners.

The Division Bench observed that both parties claimed right over the suit, and moreover, the appellants have specifically pleaded forgery and hence, they ought to have been considered proper and necessary parties.

While allowing the appeal, the Bench held:

“Order I Rule 10 of CPC is based on the doctrine of dominus litis, In the light of the aforesaid discussion, a person who claims interest by way of filing supporting documents and pleadings cannot be thrown out at the threshold. In the present case, learned Single Judge dismissed the application I.A.No.3 of 2022 filed by the appellants herein to implead them as parties to the writ petition without considering the legal position and also the contentions of the appellants herein and documents filed by them.”

WRIT APPEAL No. 626 OF 2023

Counsel for petitioner: Didugu Gopalakrishna

Counsels for respondents: M.Surender Rao, Senior Counsel, representing Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood,

Harender Pershad, learned Special Government Pleader

Click Here To Read/Download Order