CR No.7258 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7258 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on :09-11-2010 Ravinder Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Suksham Bala ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for the petitioner. MAHESH GROVER, J There is no legal infirmity in the impugned order by virtue of which the prayer of the petitioner to implead the son and the husband of the respondent as necessary parties to a suit has been declined. The respondent who is the plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner upon which the petitioner filed the instant application under Order 1 Rule 10 to contend that the husband and son of the respondent were the ones who were transacting dealings with the petitioner which were fraudulent and to prove this fact it is essential for them to be impleaded as parties. The prayer having been declined, the petitioner is in revision petition before this Court, to contend that the impugned order is illegal and that the intended persons to be impleaded as parties were essential for the proper adjudication of the controversy in hand. He further contends that another application under Order 6 Rule 17 has been moved by him which is still to be decided and in case his prayer is CR No.7258 of 2010 (O&M) 2 accepted in the pending application then it would be incumbent to array the husband and the son of the respondent as necessary parties. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition is without merit. The respondent who is the plaintiff is the dominus litus and has a right to choose the defendants against whom he intends to proceed. The petitioner who is the defendant cannot dictate to the plaintiff as to who should be the parties to bear brunt of the proceedings in a litigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. November 09, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge