IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.421 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.3.2011 Dina Nath Sharma …. Petitioner Versus Sunder Lal & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.B.C.Negi, Advocate for respondent No.7. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur whereby he allowed the application filed by Kamal Dev, respondent No.7 for being impleaded as defendant in the main suit. 2 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Dina Nath (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit praying that a decree for declaration be passed that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and further prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed restraining the defendants from interfering in the suit land. 3. According to the plaintiff, the original defendants were never in possession of the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, Kamal Dev (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant’) filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC wherein he stated that in fact, he is in possession of the suit land since 13.4.1989 and his possession over the suit land is continuous and peaceful. According to him, his possession was hostile to that of the true owner and, therefore, he has become owner by way of adverse possession and as such, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. 4. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court and aggrieved by the said order, the original plaintiff has filed the present petition. 3 5. Sh.Pritam Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff urges that the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the suit and it is for him to decide whether a party is to be impleaded in the proceedings or not. According to him, he does not seek any relief of injunction against the applicant, and, therefore, the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. 6. We are here dealing with a case where the applicant claims that he is owner in possession of the suit land but the person who has claimed that a decree that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land does not want to implead the applicant as a party to his suit. The plaintiff cannot be compelled to add Kamal Dev as a party to his suit. However, in case, it is found during the course of evidence that Kamal Dev is in possession or has any right in the suit land then the plaintiff will not be allowed to amend the suit or later implead Kamal Dev as a party to the suit. It is also obvious that the decree passed in the absence of Kamal Dev will obviously not bind him. 4 7. Sh.Chandel states that the plaintiff is well aware of these facts and has no objection and will not claim any relief against Kamal Dev, and, therefore, the petition may be allowed. In view of the statement of Sh.Chandel, Advocate the petition is allowed since no relief whatsoever is being claimed against the applicant Kamal Dev. Needless to say that this will not affect the rights of Sh.Kamal Dev to establish his rights, if any, in appropriate proceedings under law. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 10, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge