1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.756 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 1124 OF 2002 Santosh Narayan Pophle .. Plaintiff -versus Bombay Cycle and Motor Agency Ltd. .. Defendant And Premier Ltd. (Premier Automobiles Ltd.).. Respondent Ms. Prachi Mhatre i/b M.S. Bodhanwala & Co. for the plaintiff Mr. M. Siraji i/b Ms. S.V. Sonawane for the defendant in support. CORAM: R. G. KETKAR, J. DATED: 25th September, 2009. P.C. 1 This Chamber Summons is taken out by the defendant for impleading the Premier Ltd. (formerly known as, Premier Automobiles Ltd.) as defendant No.2 in the suit instituted by the plaintiff. In support of the Chamber Summons Shri Sanjay K. Chavan, Officer (Legal) of the defendant has made affidavit on 11th May, 2007. The 2 learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant is only the dealer of the vehicle in question and the Premier Ltd. is the manufacturer of the vehicle in question. The payment made by the plaintiff to the defendant was passed on to the manufacturer and therefore, in order to enable this court to completely and effectively adjudicate upon and settle all the questions between them, the presence of Premier Ltd. is absolutely necessary. 2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that admittedly the plaintiff had booked the vehicle with the defendant-dealer. The payment made by the plaintiff is duly acknowledged by the defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to refund the amount as the defendant was not in position to deliver the vehicle. Notwithstanding this, the defendant failed to refund the amount which compelled the plaintiff to institute the present suit. 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff is dominus litis in the case and it is for him to decide whom is to be made defendant. If the plaintiff does not join any party who is necessary, the court will not be in a position to pass 3 effective decree in which case the court will dismiss the suit. In the instant case, as set out earlier, the plaintiff has made payment to the defendant. The plaintiff also requested the defendant for the refund of the amount. However, the said amount was not refunded on the ground that the consideration received from the plaintiff was passed on to Premium Limited. In my opinion, in so far as plaintiff is concerned, he is concerned only with the defendant. Consequently, in my opinion, the Chamber Summons is without any merit and hence, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order: The Chamber Summons stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (R.G. KETKAR, J)