IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1059 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010. M/s Ghai Cold Drinks ........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local news paper may be allowed to see judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Present: Mr. H.S.Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. G.S.Attariwala, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Harmanjit Singh Thiara, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. ****** ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur (Nawanshahar) thereby allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleading respondent No.4 as one of the defendant. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff (petitioner herein) herein filed a suit against the defendants (respondents No.1 to 3 Civil Revision No.1059 of 2010 -2- herein) for declaration that order dated 11.01.2007, passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipality and order dated 10.05.2007, passed by Deputy Commissioner and order dated 14.05.2008, passed by the Principal Secretary are illegal, null and void and further seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the amount illegally imposed upon the plaintiff. In a suit filed by the plaintiff, respondents No.4 & 5 herein preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC saying that they are Contractor and they have been authorized to collect the octroi for the period from 04.03.2006 to 03.03.2007, hence they have every right and interest in the present suit otherwise with the collusion of the official of the Municipality, suit would be decreed and applicants would be deprived of their right to collect the octroi under the contract. Learned trial Court has allowed the application, vide impugned order dated 25.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that plaintiff is dominus litus and cannot be compelled to contest a case against the party against whom, he does not wish to contest. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter Ramesh Kumar Versus Naresh Kumar, reported in 2002(2) P.L.J. 318 and judgment passed by another single Judge of this Court in the matter Hazura Singh Versus Sukhdev Singh, 1996 P.L.J. 37. I have carefully perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, lis is between the plaintiff and defendants. Merely because present applicants/respondents No.4 & 5 are Contractor to collect the octroi does not give any locus to the contractor to oppose the suit filed by the plaintiff. Moreover, a plaintiff, who is dominus litus of proceedings cannot be compelled to contest a case against the party against whom plaintiff has no grievance and no relief is sought. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, a Contractor cannot say that octroi Civil Revision No.1059 of 2010 -3- imposed by the municipality is correct. Contractor is merely a collecting agent. Applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties. In their absence, suit can be proceed with. In the considered view of this Court, learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional and legal error while allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleading respondents No.4 & 5 as defendants. Present petition is allowed. Order impugned is set aside. 17.08.2010 (ALOK SINGH) Gagan JUDGE