IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 368 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Vineet Sharma & another …Petitioners. Versus Temple Officer, Mata Brijeshwari Devi & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8th September, 2010, whereby the learned trial Court directed the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) to implead all the Pujaris of Mata Brijeshwari Devi Temple, being 55 in number, as respondents in the suit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that the Temple Officer, appointed to look after the affairs of the Temple, has no right whatsoever to distribute the offerings given to the Temple contrary to the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 provisions of law and Rules. It is not disputed that some of these offerings are distributed amongst the 55 Pujaris of the Temple. Two of the 55 Pujaris moved an application before the learned trail Court praying that since the rights of the Pujaris are going to be affected, they should be impleaded as parties to the suit. 3. The learned trail Court has rightly held that though the plaintiff is dominus litis of his suit, but if by way of the prayer made in the suit, the rights of certain parties are likely to be affected, then such parties are necessary parties to the suit and in their absence, the suit cannot proceed. In their absence, the suit will fail and, therefore, it is necessary to array such parties as respondents in the suit. 4. Even before me it has not been disputed that the Pujaris do get a share of the offerings from the Temple Officer. In case the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed as prayed for, then the Pujaris shall not get their share in the offerings and as such, there can be no manner of doubt that their rights are affected by such a suit. They are, therefore, not only appropriate but necessary parties to the suit. No suit can proceed further without impleading them as parties to the suit. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the learned trial Court. The petition is, therefore, rejected. However, keeping in view the fact that there are 55 Pujaris, if the petitioners-plaintiffs deem it fit and proper, they may 3 approach the learned trial Court for permitting them to file the suit against the newly added parties in representative capacity, which application shall be decided in accordance with law. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 20, 2010 (rajni)