IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 477 of 2006 (M/S) The Manu Maharani Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Through its Managing Director Shri Anirudh Singh Katoch ..… Petitioner Versus Manu Maharani Hotel Ltd. and another ..… Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Arvind Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the respondent. A suit for injunction was filed against the defendant to restrain him from interfering in the plaintiff’s business being conducted in the premises of the defendant’s hotel. During the pendency of the proceedings, after the exchange of the affidavits, it came on record that the ostensible owner of the hotel is Dan Singh Bisht Trust. Based on that, the plaint was amended and, subsequently, additional written statement was filed and, thereafter, a specific issue on this was framed, namely, as to whether Dan Singh Bisht trust is the owner of the property in question or not. Based on this issue, evidence was required to be led. The petitioner, being the plaintiff, being saddled in proving this issue, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to implead Dan Singh Bisht Trust as a defendant in the suit. This application was opposed by the defendant. The trial court, after considering the material evidence brought on record, rejected the application, against which, the plaintiff / petitioner has filed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certain directions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that unless and until Dan Singh Bisht is arrayed as a party, neither the 2 plaintiff nor the defendant could prove the fact as to whether the said trust was the ostensible owner of the premises in question and, consequently, since an issue on this aspect had already been framed, it would be appropriate that the trust itself is arrayed as a party and come forward with its evidence. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff being the dominus litus has a right to choose his opponent. In the present case, once an issue on this aspect has been framed, it becomes necessary to implead Dan Singh Bist trust as a necessary defendant since the dispute relating to all aspect of the matter is settled finally between the parties. Consequently, the trial court committed an error in rejecting the application. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff / petitioner is also allowed subject to payment of ` 5000/- which shall be deposited before the Court below within three weeks from today. The necessary amendment in the plaint shall also be carried out by the petitioner within the same period before the trial court. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the defendant without furnishing any sureties. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 1st December, 2010 Shiv