1 W.P.No.7770/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7770 OF 2011. Gunabai W/o Apparao Waghmare, Age 70 years, Occ.Pensioner, R/o Tagor Nagar, Latur, through her son and General Power of Attorney Holder Milind S/o Apparao Waghmare, Age 37 years,Occ.Service, R/o Tagor Nagar, Latur. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. Janardhan S/o Bankatrao Chavan, Age 65 years, Occ.Pensioner, R/o Nanded Naka, Latur. 2. State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Latur, Dist. Latur. 3. The Cooperative Oil Industries Ltd., through its Liquidator, District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Latur, Dist.Latur. 4. Sow. Pushpa W/o Narsing Bhosale, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Dayaram Road, Latur, Dist. Latur. 5. Shailesh S/o Pralhadrao Akangire, 2 W.P.No.7770/11 Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Teli Galli, Latur. 6. Rajkumar S/o Pralhadrao Akangire, Age major, Occ.Business, R/o Teli Galli, Latur. 7. Sow. Seema W/o Govind Katalakute, Age major, Occ.Household, R/o Tilak Nagar, Latur. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.V.Natu, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Mr.Natu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.3 to 6 are exparte and Respondent No.7 has filed Written Statement. The present Writ Petition is limited to the extent of addition of present Respondent No.1 as a party to the suit. None of the Respondents had filed any say to the application. 3 W.P.No.7770/11 In view of that Respondent Nos.3 to 7 are not necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition and seeks to delete Respondent Nos.3 to 7. 3. The Respondent Nos.3 to 7 deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 4. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. The present petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, the present Respondent No.1 filed an application for impleading himself as a party to the suit on the ground that some averments are made against him in the plaint. The trial Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff has filed the present Writ Petition. 6. Mr.Natu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no relief is claimed 4 W.P.No.7770/11 against the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 has executed the agreement as a Manager of the original defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 is a party. When no relief is claimed against the present Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 is not a necessary nor a proper party. The plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case. The suit is for relief of specific performance. The Respondent No.1 is not the owner of the property. In light of that, Respondent No.1 could not have been added as a party. 7. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that allegations are made in the plaint against the Respondent No.1. To add a particular person as a party is the discretion of the Court. The trial Court has exercised the discretion properly and added him as a party. The presence of the Respondent No.1 in the suit would facilitate effective adjudication of the suit. All these aspects have been properly considered by the Court. 8. No doubt, to add a party to the suit is 5 W.P.No.7770/11 the discretion of the Court but the discretion that vest with the Court is not an ordinary or unregulated discretion but a judicious discretion to be exercised as per the judicial norms and legal principles. The plaintiff being a dominus litis of the suit has a choice as to whom he should make the defendants. It is only if a particular party is a necessary party as laid down U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., the said party can be impleaded. In the present case, the Respondent No.1 is not the owner of the suit property nor has executed the agreement in his individual capacity, no relief is claimed against him. If the defendants desire, they can examine him as a witness but simply because as a Manager of defendant No.2, he has executed the agreement, that would not be sufficient to implead him as a defendant in his individual and personal capacity. 9. On perusal of the impugned order, it also nowhere transpires as to on what basis the Court wants to suggest that his presence would be necessary for effective adjudication of the 6 W.P.No.7770/11 dispute. 10. In view of the fact that the present Respondent No.1 is not a necessary nor a proper party, the discretion exercised by the Court while allowing the application filed by the Respondent No.1 for impleading him as a party is erroneous and does not stand to any reason. 11. In the result, the Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 12. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp7770.11 7 W.P.No.7770/11