IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19294 of 2011 Mahabir Sharma Versus Awadh Bihari Tiwary & Ors ---------------------------------- 3. 21.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar. By the impugned order dated 16.7.2011 passed by 4th Subordinate Judge Ara in Title Suit No. 51 of 2010 the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. has been rejected. The petitioner filed the application for being added as arty on the ground that the property involved in the suit is „Aam Rasta‟ and the petitioner uses the said „Rasta‟ since more than 70 years and, therefore, he should be added as party. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without examining the fact that the property is „Aam Rasta‟ the court below rejected the application. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner has got no locus standi to be heard in the suit. It appears that the plaintiff respondent filed the aforesaid suit for correction of the record of right regarding the suit property which is recorded in the name of the State of Bihar on the ground that the 2 plaintiff is the owner of the same. Admittedly, no relief has been claimed against the present petitioner. In 2010 (7) SCC 417 Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others the Apex Court held that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But general rule is subject to the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. In the said decision the Apex Court further held that “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. At paragraph 24 some guidelines have been given by the Apex Court regarding the impleadment of the parties. At paragraph 25 it has been held that the court has the discretion to either allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party merely because he is a property party. In the present case admittedly the 3 petitioner is not claiming any title or interest over the subject matter of the suit. His claim is easementary right. As stated the plaintiff has not claimed any right against the petitioner. In such view of the matter in my opinion the learned court below has rightly refused to add him as party in the suit because his presence is not at all necessary for determination of the questions involved in the suit between the parties. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ application. Thus, it is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)