IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 250 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Ram Prakash and others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. R.K.Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents 1 to 3: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the LRs of respondent No.5. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27.2.2009 whereby respondent No.5 Nikku Ram, since deceased, was added as defendant in the suit in question. 2. The plaintiffs are three real brothers. Earlier, one of the plaintiffs, Brij Lal had filed a suit against Nikku Ram qua the same suit land which suit was dismissed and in this suit the other two brothers Ram Prakash and Paras Ram were the proforma defendants. Thereafter the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 present suit has been filed by all the three brothers qua the same suit land against the State of Himachal Pradesh, its functionaries and one Shri Om Prakash but Nikku Ram was not made a party. According to the plaintiffs the cause of action for filing the present suit is totally different. 3. During the pendency of the suit Nikku Ram filed an application that he is the owner in possession of the suit land and therefore, a necessary party to the suit. This application has been allowed by the trial Court and against this order the plaintiffs have filed the present petition. 4. I have heard Shri R.K.Gautam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for legal heirs of deceased Nikku Ram. 5. At the outset, it may be stated that in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court will not normally interfere in the orders passed by the trial Court unless there is an error of jurisdiction. Nikku Ram claims to be owner of the suit land. At this stage, this Court is not deciding the controversy on merits but the only question is whether Nikku Ram should be heard in the suit or not. Normally, the plaintiff is the dominus litus of his case and if he does not want to array a defendant he 3 cannot be forced to do so subject to the condition that the party who is not impleaded cannot be subjected to the final decree if any passed in that case. However, in the present case, there has been previous litigation between one of the plaintiffs and Nikku Ram qua the suit land. Therefore, the directions of the learned trial Court to permit Nikku Ram to be added as a party cannot be said to be an erroneous order in exercise of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition is rejected. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 23rd May, 2011. No costs. 7th April, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge