1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3433 of 2009 (M/s Arihant Krushi Kendra v. Pramod s/o Madhukarrao Thakre) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.P. Kotwal, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 14 th August, 2009 This petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha, permitting addition of one Raju Thakre as a co-plaintiff at the instance of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had come to the Court for recovery of certain amounts towards his goods sold by himself and through his brother Raju Thakre. The transaction, which was indulged in through Raju Thakre, is stated to have occurred in the year 2007, though the petitioner-defendant has not clarified this in the petition or the annexures thereto. The suit was filed in the year 2008 and the application for joinder of Raju Thakre was filed on 7-11-2008. The petitioner-defendant had raised a general 2 plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties without specifying as to who were those parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Devchand Constructions v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao and another, reported at 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 644, where defendant No.2 had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being arrayed as defendant in the suit. It was not plaintiff’s application. The observations of the Court came into that context. The Court had quoted from a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Banarasidass Richpal Durgaprasad v. Pnna Lal Ram Richpal, reported at 1969 Punjab and Haryana 57, where the Punjab and Haryana High Court had observed that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. He is the master of the suit. He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not wish to fight and against whom he does not claim any relief. Such are not the facts of the present case. Even if Raju Thakre is held to have independently entered into a contract with the defendants, the claim by Raju Thakre would not be time-barred on the averments made in the petition. In any case, the contention of the plaintiff is that Raju Thakre dealt with the defendants on his behalf and sold plaintiff 3 No.1’s goods. Therefore, joinder of Raju Thakre is unlikely prejudice the trial of the suit. Raju Thakre may not have been a necessary party, but is not an improper party. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by adding Raju Thakre, the scope of controversy is being widened, is to say the least ridiculous, as no new transactions are being inserted in the plaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to show that Raju Thakre was willing to be a plaintiff. It may be seen from the application allowed by the Trial Court that the plaintiff had sought leave of the Court for permitting Raju Thakre to sign the plaint. If Raju Thakre was not willing, the petitioner need not have rushed to the Court and the matter would have been killed in the Trial Court. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. Pdl 4