Person Holding Relevant Evidence To Dispute Not 'Necessary Party' Unless Compelled By Law: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that merely because a person was holding some relevant evidence to present on the questions involved in a dispute, that in itself would not make that person a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.

The bench of Justice Nupur Bhati further relied upon the principle of dominus litis, to reject defendant's challenge against order of trial court that dismissed her application to implead certain parties in plaintiff's suit for possession and permanent injunction, and held that since the suit was initiated by the plaintiff, he, being the dominus litis, could not be forced to add parties against whom he did not want to contest unless there was compulsion of law.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a petitioner against whom a suit for possession, permanent injunction and recovery was initiated before the trial court in relation to a plot that she had purchased. The petitioner filed an application for impleading Sub-Registrar Office and the Additional Collector which was rejected by the trial court against which the writ petition was filed.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Sub-Registrar Office and the Additional Collector were necessary parties to the case for determining the veracity and validity of the documents based on which she had purchased the property.

Rejecting this argument, the Court observed that a party was considered necessary if it was bound by the result of the action and the question which was required to be settled and that such question could not be settled completely without such party. In this light, the Court made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in which it was held that,

“The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness.”

In this background, the Court ruled that since the sole reason given by the petitioner seeking impleadment of the two parties was for determining validity of the documents, they could not be considered necessary party.

Furthermore, the Court also referred to the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia v. Kiran Kant Robinson in which the Apex Court had considered the principle of dominus litis to hold that the plaintiff, being the dominus litis, could not be compelled to add such parties whom he did not want to fight against unless there was a compulsion under law.

Relying on this case, the Court stated that since the suit was initiated by the respondent in the present case, it was exclusively his prerogative to choose the opposite parties unless there was some compulsion of rule of law. The Court observed that such a right was already exercised by the respondent while filing the suit wherein the two parties were not added.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed,

Title: Satay Narayan Gaur v Smt. Anjana & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 369

Click Here To Read/Download Order