(1) WP. 6252.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6252 OF 2010 Narendrakumar S/o Kachrulal Abad and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Shaikh Jafar S/o Sk. Imam and others .. RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6266 OF 2010 Narendrakumar S/o Kachrulal Abad and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS Shaikh Jafar S/o Sk. Imam and others .. RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for the Petitioners ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard learned counsel. The petitioners are original defendants. They filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for addition of Forest Department as third party. According to them, the suit property bearing survey no.558 is their ancestral property and they are in (2) WP. 6252.2010 actual possession thereof since about 60 years. They contended that the plaintiffs colluded with the Revenue Authorities and are trying to claim possession over the part of survey no.558. They asserted that the plaintiffs were not lawfully granted any land which was originally of Forest Department. Hence presence of the Chief Conservator of Forest and other Forest authorities was sought in order to ensure final and effective adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court rejected the application. 2. Mr. Kale would submit that in the previous litigation in Writ Petition no. 5435 of 2004, Deputy Conservator of Forest filed affidavit claiming land survey no. 276 as part of the Forest land. He would further point out that the plaintiffd cannot maintain suit in respect of the dland which is originally a forest land. 3. The question of addition of a party depends on the necessity which the trial Court may feel for (3) WP. 6252.2010 effective and final adjudication of the suit. A party cannot be added against the desire of the plaintiff. For, the plaintiff is dominus litus. It is only in exceptional case that third party may be added even though the plaintiff is not willing for such addition, as and when the trial Court finds that presence of such party is necessary to finally decide the lis. In the present case, the suit is for injunction simplicitor. It is but natural that the material issue involved is as to whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession over the suit property. Obviously, the issues unrelated to the nature of the suit cannot be dragged at the instance of the defendants. The trial Court has given substantial reasons while rejecting the application. The impugned order does not suffer from arbitrariness or perversity. Both Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp