Plaintiff Enjoys Status Of Dominus Litis & Has Right To Pursue His Claim Against Anyone He Thinks Fit: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that a plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and thus, has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit. Dominis litis means "master of the suit".Accordingly, it dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners (original defendants) challenging the order of the Trial Court, rejecting their application for impleadment...
Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that a plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and thus, has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit. Dominis litis means "master of the suit".
Accordingly, it dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners (original defendants) challenging the order of the Trial Court, rejecting their application for impleadment of a company, as per them a necessary party, to the suit instituted against them by the respondent (original plaintiff).
The bench comprising Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta was dealing with a revision petition challenging trial courts order whereby the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s Gill Sindu Transport Company as defendant was dismissed.
The case came up as a result of a Civil Suit filed by the respondent against the petitioners as well as the proforma respondents seeking a decree for recovery of Rs.34,98,260.70 Ps. with cost. The petitioners moved the above-said application stating that defendant-company is also required to be impleaded as defendant for the just and proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties in the Civil Suit. This very application was rejected by the Trial Court. Hence this revision petition.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, the court held that the contention that 50 bags of the fabrics were handed over to the proposed defendant-transport company for delivering them to the authorized consignee at Delhi but the said goods allegedly never reached their actual destination which makes the proposed defendant No.5 a necessary party to effectively decide the real controversy does not hold any merit.
However, I do not find this contention to be tenable because concededly, the proposed defendant was not a party to the transaction in question between the petitioners and respondent No.1-plaintiff in the Civil Suit. The petitioners were to deliver the said goods of respondent No.1- plaintiff Company to proforma respondents No.2 and 3 and they are stated to have engaged the proposed defendant No.5 to transport the same.
Court further held that there was no privity of contract between respondent No.1-plaintiff and the said proposed defendant which is why they cannot be construed to be a necessary party.
Thus, there was no privity of contract between respondent No.1-plaintiff and the said proposed defendant and it being so, the proposed defendant Company cannot be construed to be a necessary party to the said Civil Suit for its proper and effective decision.
The court concluded by stating that the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has a right to pursue claim against anyone.
Even otherwise, the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit.
For the reasons discussed above, the court dismissed the instant revision petition for it being sans any merit.
The decision is in line with Supreme Court's decision in IL & FS Engineering and Constructions Company vs M/s Bhargavarma Constructions and others, where the approach taken by a High Court in setting aside a decree in a suit and remanding the same for fresh trial after directing the plaintiff to implead a party as an additional defendant in the suit was disapproved.
Case Title : Ms Shree Bhagwati Road Lines and Another v. MS GBTL Limited and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 74