CRP 83/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is an order da ted 9.12.2009 arising out of Title Suit No. 31/07 by which the learned trial cou rt rejected the prayer of the petitioner for impleading him as one of the defend ants in the suit. The plaintiff/respondent instituted the aforesaid suit with the followin g prayer - a) for realization of arrear rent from the defendant for the month of June, 2007 and for future rent as provided as per Order - 20, Rule 12 of Civil Proced ure Code b) for eviction and khas possession for being defaulter in respect of the s uit shop as mentioned in the schedule - A. c) for declaration that the defendant is an unauthorized occupier in respec t of schedule - B mentioned suit shop. d) for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to have the right, title and interest over the suit shops mentioned in both the schedules. e) for cost of the suit f) for any other relief/ reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled in law and equity. The sole defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement. The su it is now in the hearing stage. At this stage the present petitioner has filed a n application under Order 1 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC for impleadi ng him as one of the defendants. The contention of the petitioner is that he is the tenant in respect of schedule- B land and accordingly he is a necessary party required to be impleade d in the suit and it is further necessary to protect his interest. Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the relief has been sought for against the present petitioner and accordingly he has not b een rightly impleaded as a party. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the impu gned order, I find that no relief has been prayed for in the suit against the pr esent petitioner justifying his impleadment in the suit. The plaintiff has not s ought for ejectment of the petitioner from the schedule-B land which is stated t o be under occupation of the present petitioner. That apart, the plaintiff is a dominus litis in the suit. If the plaintiff chooses to omit any person from the suit he has to suffer for that. However, such omission is found to be in respec t of a necessary party, I do not find that the present petitioner would be in an y way affected by his non impleadment in the suit. The decree passed in the suit would certainly confine upon the defendant in the suit and not upon the present petitioner. Subject to the above observations, this revision petition stands rejecte d.