1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7812/2007 (Nirmal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) Date of Order :: 2nd May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.C.S.Kotwani for the petitioner Mr.O.P.Boob, Government Counsel Mr.Gaurav Audichya for Mr.V.K.Agarwal for the respondent No.6 Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Sriganganagar has not committed any jurisdictional error in allowing the application for impleadment as made by the respondent No.6 and in impleading him as party defendant in the suit proceedings. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner that the petitioner has filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction only against the State of Rajasthan and its Officers and has impleaded all the necessary parties to the suit; that he is not asking for any relief against the applicant whose very identity has been in question and rather he has been prosecuted and convicted for impersonating himself as Mahendra Singh s/o Hari Singh; that petitioner is not claiming any relief against the named Mahendra Singh whether he is son of Lal Singh or he is son of Hari Singh; and that the plaintiff-petitioner being dominus litis cannot be compelled to 2 litigate with a person against whom he is not seeking any relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Chagan Lal Munnalal & another Vs. RIICO & others: 2002 (3) RLW 1719. The arguments remain bereft of substance and the aforesaid decision has no application to the fact situation of the present case. From the copy of plaint as filed on record as Annexure- 1, it is noticed that the plaintiff has claimed his right over the land in question as heir of his maternal grand-father Hari Singh; and specific averments have been taken concerning one person named Mahendra Singh s/o Lal Singh who allegedly impersonating himself as Mahendra Singh s/o Hari Singh moved an application claiming succession to the land in question! According to the plaint averments, the said impersonator was prosecuted and was convicted under Section 420 IPC on 22.02.1999; that the appeal filed by such Mahendra Singh was also dismissed by the Sessions Court on 09.12.1999; that such Mahendra Singh did move an application before the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner and got the mater remanded to the Rehabilitation Officer, Sriganganagar; that the matter was taken to this Court whereupon directions were issued allowing the land with Nirmal Singh and Rehabilitation Officer was required to decide 3 the matter within six months (vide paragraphs Nos.3,4,5 & 6 of the plaint). In view of the specific averments as taken in the plaint relating to such person Mahendra Singh who projected himself as son of Hari Singh and regarding whom the plaintiff- petitioner would raise dispute about identity, it is but apparent that for effectual determination of the questions involved in the matter, presence of the applicant Mahendra Singh is necessary. Other aspects of the matter are of course required to be decided after taking evidence but necessity of the applicant on record cannot be denied. The principles that plaintiff as dominus litis cannot be compelled to litigate against a particular person, in this fact situation, cannot be operated in the fashion that though the plaintiff would take averments in the plaint raising serious questions in relation to a particular person and when such person comes before the Court to be heard, he be denied the opportunity of hearing. For the very averments taken in the plaint, the application for impleadment was required to be, and has rightly been, allowed. This writ petition remains wholly bereft of substance and is, therefore, dismissed. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J.