ssm 1 909.wp.116.11-re IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 116 OF 2011 Edna Mathew Thekkakar ....Petitioner Versus Mrs. Tassy Joseph Demello and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b P. B. Gujjar fort the Petitioner. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 13 and 14. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 18 TH MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. In spite of the notice for final disposal, the Respondents, except the Respondent Nos. 13 and 14, have not put in their appearance. The Petitioners have approached to this Court challenging the order dated 5 th May, 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Chamber Summons No. 211 of ssm 2 909.wp.116.11-re 2010 in Long Cause Suit No.1047 of 2006 thereby allowing the said Chamber Summons and transposing Defendant Nos. 15 to 22 as Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9. 3. The Petitioner has filed a suit against the Respondent Nos. 1 to 14 for injunction. The Plaintiff claims to be the owner of the suit property. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 were tress-passing over the suit property and as such they claimed an order of injunction. The Defendant Nos.15 to 22 had filed a Chamber Summons contending therein that they also had interest in the suit property. Though the said Chamber Summons was resisted by the present Petitioner, the same was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. Subsequently, another Chamber Summons was filed for transposing the said Defendant Nos. 15 to 22 as Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9. By the impugned order, the same is allowed. Hence, the present Petition. 4. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the ssm 3 909.wp.116.11-re Petitioner/original Plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court has grossly erred in imposing the said Defendants as Plaintiffs. He further submits that the reliance placed by the learned Trial Judge on Order 23 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is also without substance. 5. It is settled principle of law that a Plaintiff is dominus litus. A party cannot be first join as a co-plaintiff against the wishes of original plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge, while allowing the application has relied on Rule 1A, Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. I find that the stage of invoking Rule 1A, Order 23 of has not yet arisen. Only in the event the present Petitioner/Plaintiff withdraws or abandons the suit under Order 23, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and only if such a liberty was granted by the Court, the question of transposing the Defendants as Plaintiffs would arise. Undisputedly, such a stage has not yet arisen. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge erred in allowing ssm 4 909.wp.116.11-re the Chamber Summons. The Petition is therefore allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (B. R. GAVAI, J.)