1 Ram Niwas & Ors. Vs. THE CIVIL JUDGE (J.D.), RAJGARH & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6139/09 ) Dated: 13.01.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioners. 1, This writ petition is directed against order dated 8.1.07 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajgarh (Churu), whereby an application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit, stands rejected. 2. The plaintiff, respondent no.2 herein has preferred a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 2.3.73 alleged to have executed by late Shri Chandagi Ram, father of the plaintiff in favour of Shri Balla Ram, the father of the defendants no.1 & 2 in respect of the agriculture land situated at Rohi Mauja Thimau Badi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu. 3. The application preferred by the petitioners for impleading them as party defendants in the suit has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that the petitioners have not been able to establish their any interest in the lis between the parties to the suit. On being pointedly asked by this Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has not been able to point out as to how the petitioners rights are likely to be adversely affected if any decree is passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff, cancelling the sale 2 deed executed by his father in favour of father of the defendants in the suit. 4. Under the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court may at any stage add a person as a party to the suit as defendant or plaintiff, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In the instant case, the petitioners cannot be treated a necessary or proper party whose presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute in the suit. The plaintiff who is dominus litus of the proceedings, cannot be compelled to contest against the party, against whom he does not wish to contest. 5. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),J. vij