Order I Rule 10 CPC | Theory Of Dominus Litis Can't Be Overstretched To Exclude Necessary Parties From Suit: Bombay High Court

"The theory of dominus litis cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading of parties, which results in ineffective decrees being passed in absence of necessary parties or where the theory is misused to deliberately obtain decree against non-interested persons/officials and then use it to assert rights of Plaintiff. It is also for the Court to ensure that the real matter in dispute is effectively decided by impleading all those who are necessary parties", the court held.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Aurangabad Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging trial court's order to implead two persons in the petitioner's suit for injunction simpliciter.

If the trial court feels it appropriate that any particular party's presence is necessary for adjudicating upon the issue involved in a suit, it has full power under CPC to direct addition of such party to the suit, the court stated.

The petitioner is a plaintiff in a civil suit seeking an injunction to restrain defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit properties. The petitioner filed the suit claiming that a trust named Shri Ram Temple Devastan Nila showed the suit properties to be trust properties in its registration without having any right or title or interest over the properties.

The petitioner in his suit did not implead the trust or the trustees. He only impleaded Revenue and Police officials as defendants to the suit. One T. Somaiah and one Akkam Kishan filed an application before the court for adding them as defendants. The trial court allowed the application and added the applicants as defendants. Hence the appeal.

Advocate Shailendra Gangakhedkar for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff cannot be forced implead persons against whom he does not want to claim relief. Somaiah and Kishan cannot insist to be added to the suit. They could only have impleaded themselves in the suit if the petitioner was seeking a declaration of title in the suit.

The court perused the plaint and noted that the petitioner has made specific averments that some unknown persons attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the property. The plaint also specifically states that the trust of Somaiah and Kishan does not have any rights over the property.

The court questioned why the petitioner chose to file suit only the against the government officials despite having full knowledge of rights being claimed by the trust and the trustees in the suit property.

The court observed that the suit was 'cleverly drafted' by intentionally avoiding to implead the trust to get a perpetual injunction behind the back of the persons claiming interest in the property. The trial court has filled this gap by impleading Somaiah and Kishan, the court observed.

Referring to Gangakhedkar's contention that the injunction simpliciter would not be binding to Somaiah and Kishan if they were not impleaded and they can have their own remedies against the petitioner, the court opined that this will result in multiple proceedings and said that the trial court correctly avoided the situation by adding Somaiah and Kishan to the suit.

The court said that there is no doubt that the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit and it is his choice to seek an injunction only against the person see chooses.

However, the powers of the trial court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code are very wide and extensive. The court can implead any party at any stage even without an application if it thinks that their presence is necessary in order to effectively adjudicate the suit.

The trial court had found that the persons related to the trust need to be impleaded to correctly decide interest of the plaintiff in the suit properties.

The court concluded that the petitioner's prayer for perpetual injunction in the suit cannot be decided without ascertaining the rights claimed by the persons related to the trust. Hence, their presence is necessary to adjudicate the suit.

The court held that the trial court was entitled to add Somaiah and Kishan as defendants even without any application as it has discretion to decide whose presence is necessary for deciding a suit.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 10493 of 2022

Case title – Ashok Babarao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 392