IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.253 of 2007 Date of decision: 11.4.2008. Krishan Dayal @ Krishan Dutt ....Petitioner -Versus- Om Parkash and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioner: Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Advocate Deepak Gupta,J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Ghumarwin, whereby respondents 3&4 herein have been directed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against his son and daughter-in-law praying for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from in any manner interfering in the suit land. The suit was contested by the defendants and the main plea taken in the suit was that the property in question is ancestral/coparcenary and therefore the defendants also had a right for the same. Issues were framed. Evidence was led by both the sides. When the case was ripe for arguments, at that stage, an application was filed by defendants 3&4 who are married daughters 2 of the plaintiff alleging that since they are also going to be affected by the result of the litigation, they may be impleaded as defendants in the suit. The trial Court allowed this application. When the matter was taken up on the last date of hearing, this Court had observed that in case the plaintiff does not want to implead the respondents 3&4 as party in the suit, of which he is the dominus litus he will not take benefit of the decision of the present suit in any proceedings which may be filed by respondents 3&4 to assert and vindicate their rights. Sh.K.D. Sood, learned counsel, on instructions received from his client states that the present suit may be decided without impleading respondents 3&4 as party defendants and in case respondents 3&4 file a separate suit for asserting their rights the decision rendered in this suit will not be treated as res judicata in the suit filed by respondents No. 3&4. Shri Ashwani Sharma states that he has no objection in case an order is passed on these lines. Accordingly, the order of the learned trial Court is set-aside and it is directed that in the present case which is already ripe for hearing respondents 3&4 will not be added as party defendants. It is made clear that if respondents 3&4 file any other suit to assert their rights the decision in the present suit will not operate as res judicata, in such suit. The parties will obviously be entitled to raise all other pleas and defenses available to them in any other subsequent litigation. 3 The order of the learned trial Court is accordingly set-aside. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. April 11, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.