1 wp2191.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2191 of 2011 Patrick Albuquerque ... Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr. Amarendra Mishra for the petitioner. Mr. Pratapsinh Rananavare for respondent no. 3. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- APRIL 27, 2011. P.C. The petition challenges the order dated 14th February, 2011 vide which the Chamber Summons filed by respondent no. 3 for impleading it as party defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner came to be allowed. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is a dominus litus and, therefore, the party cannot be imposed against the wishes of the plaintiff. 3. The jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC is discretionary jurisdiction. One of the grounds on which the application to implead the party can be allowed is that when the Court finds appearance of such party 2 wp2191.11.sxw necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 4. Admittedly, the building in which the petitioner resides is of the respondent no. 3 Society. Admittedly, the impugned notice issued by the Corporation is at the instance of respondent no. 3. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that respondent no. 3 is not even a proper party to the proceedings before the learned trial Court. 5. No perversity is noticed in the impugned order to warrant interference. 6. Needless to state that the observations in the impugned order are only for consideration of the Chamber Summons of respondent no. 3 for impleading him as a party defendant and same will not have bearing when the suit is decided on its merits. (B.R. GAVAI, J)