IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6235 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: April 19, 2011. Waryam Chand. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Inder Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.09.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Fazilka vide which application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading him as a party, was dismissed. CR No.6235 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 25.10.2007 of the land described in the head note was filed by respondent No.1 –Inder Singh against respondent No.2 –Puran Singh. During the pendency of the suit an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for impleading him as a party was filed by the present petitioner on the plea that exchange of land was effected between him and Puran Singh and that part of the land in the present suit was also exchanged. It has also been contended that he has already filed a suit for declaration on the basis of said exchange deed, which is pending. Hence, it is contended that he is a necessary party. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 –Inder Singh that he had also filed an application for impleading him as a party in the suit filed by the present petitioner and that however, his prayer was declined by learned trial Court. He has also submitted that he filed Civil Revision No.165 of 2010 against the said order before this Court and however, the same was also dismissed on the ground that plaintiff in a suit is an architect of his own proceedings and it is open to him to implead or delete any person in the memorandum of parties and that petitioner/respondent No.1 is having no inherent right to get himself impleaded in the proceedings. Hence, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that on the same ground present petitioner is 2 CR No.6235 of 2009 having no right to be impleaded as a party in this case and that however, he may move an appropriate application before learned court of competent jurisdiction so as to get both the suits tried together. Law is well settled that plaintiff is dominus litus and that he is master of his own case and that he cannot be compelled to implead third party in a suit filed by him if he does not want to seek relief from him. However, court can order to implead a person as a party if his presence is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy in dispute. In the present case, the suit has been filed by respondent No.1 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell executed between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. Petitioner has also filed a suit for declaration against respondent No.2 on the basis of exchange deed executed between him and respondent No.2, wherein application filed by respondent No.1 for impleading him as a party in that suit was declined by the trial Court. Hence, on the same anology he cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party in the present suit and that however, it will be open to him to move an appropriate application before the court of competent jurisdiction so as to get both the suits tried together Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 19, 2011. JUDGE 3 CR No.6235 of 2009 'om' 4