1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3626 of 2009 (Sushil T. Dhanawat v. N.M.C. and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri S.S. Murthy, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 29 th August, 2009 This is a landlord’s petition taking exception to the rejection by the Trial Court of his application for being joined under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as a co-defendant in a suit filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, the occupiers of the suit premises. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had filed the suit against respondent No.1 – the Municipal Corporation for a permanent injunction to restrain the officers of respondent No.1 from demolishing the suit premises alleging that they had initiated action for demolition mala fide at the instance of the petitioner, who was alleged to be claiming as the landlord of the suit premises. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge held that the presence of the petitioner is not 2 necessary for deciding the controversy and, therefore, rejected the application. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Except for a reference to the petitioner in paras 2 and 3 in the plaint, there is nothing against the petitioner in the petition. The relief claimed is against the Municipal Corporation, because the Corporation had issued notice under Section 289(1) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. The question was whether the notice could have to be issued or the premises were required to be demolished under the said Section. It is not clear as to why the presence of the petitioner in such a lis would be necessary merely because he had been referred to at two places in the plaint. Further, as held by the Supreme Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, reported at (2005) 6 SCC 733, the plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight, unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law. The tests for such compulsion are that there must be a right to some relief against such a party in respect of controversy involved in the proceedings and that no effective decree can be passed in absence of such a party. Now there is no question of effective decree not being passed in absence of the petitioner and there is no question of respondent Nos.2 and 3 claiming any right to some relief against the petitioner. 3 If the petitioner has any grievances, he can independently file a suit and request the Court to have the suits tried together. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl