IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 87 OF 2011 SHRI RIYAZ SHAIK ... Petitioner Versus SHRI ABDUL KARIM NOOR MOHAMMED AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. Sardessai, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Rohit Bras De Sa, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 15th April, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. A. B. De Sa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. R. B. De Sa, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 23rd September, 2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Vasco-da-Gama in Special Civil Suit No.7/2010/B by which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. 3. In the above suit for specific performance of agreement dated 17th October, 2008 filed by respondent no.1 against respondent nos.2 and 3, five applicants filed an application dated 3rd July, 2010 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. for impleadment of defendants in the suit. The petitioner is applicant no.2 in the said application. 4. The application was opposed by the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that there was no prima facie evidence to establish applicants' right to the suit property. The trial Court further held that the applicants and the defendants appear to be in collusion in order to delay the suit. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent nos.2 and 3, who have also not supported the impugned order. Perusal of the application dated 3rd July, 2010 does not even prima facie disclose that the applicants have any right to the suit property in respect of which the specific decree has been sought by the plaintiff. It is well settled that ordinarily, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and unless it is shown that the party sought to be joined is necessary party to the suit, no party can insist upon being joined as defendant in the suit. 6. In so far as the finding of the trial Court that the applicants and the defendants appear to be in collusion is concerned, there is no material on record in support of the said finding and as such, the said finding cannot be sustained in law. However, this fact by itself is not sufficient to set aside the impugned order, which cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error to warrant interference in exercise of supervisionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which has to be sparingly exercised to ensure that the Courts and Tribunals function within the bounds of their authority. Testing the impugned order on the touchstone of this principle, I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA