IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2715 of 2008 Date of decision: May 12, 2008. Rakesh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Devi Dutt & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos.2715 and 2716 of 2008 as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, facts have been taken from CR No.2715 of 2008. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved by the petitioners for their impleadment as defendants in the suit has been dismissed. Respondent No.1 – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption claiming himself to be a tenant over the suit land. The aforesaid civil suit has been filed by him against proforma respondents No.2 to 4. The above stated civil suit was instituted on 5.9.2005. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the original defendants are stated to have sold the subject land to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 24.5.2007. Mutation No.8166 is also stated to have been sanctioned in their favour on 28.5.2007. Alleging, inter-alia, that the suit land having been purchased by them, they have become necessary, or at least proper, party to the suit as their interest is likely to be affected by the final outcome thereof, the petitioners moved an application for their impleadment which has since been dismissed by the learned trial court vide the impugned order. It may be noticed here that the respondent – plaintiff has already led his evidence and the suit is now stated to be at the stage of defendants' evidence. The doctrine of dominus litus is well known. A party cannot thrust itself upon the plaintiff to whom he has chosen not to implead in the suit. As noticed earlier, the respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption on the ground that they had a pre- emptory right to purchase the land which defendant No.3 (Smt. Chhanno) had sold to defendants No.1 & 2 by way of registered sale deed No.797 dated 22.8.2005. At that point of time, the petitioners were neither here nor there. In other words, they were neither necessary nor proper party required to be impleaded by the respondent – plaintiff while instituting the suit. They have taken a calculated risk of purchasing the suit land, which is the subject matter of the civil suit. Since they have stepped into the shoes of defendants No.1 & 2, i.e., the proforma respondents herein, the consequences, if any, flowing from the decision in the suit is bound to affect them as well. No case for impleadment of the petitioners, therefore, is made out. Dismissed. May 12, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge