Civil Revision No. 306 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 306 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2010 Gurdit Singh .. Petitioner v. Satwant Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.8.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for being impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit filed by Satwant Singh (respondent No.1), was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land, which was jointly owned by the petitioner along with Satwant Singh was exchanged with another land owned by Municipal Council, Abohar so as to enable them to lay a link road to connect bus stand road with Hanumangarh Road. Later on, the resolution of the Municipal Council was reversed. The same was challenged by Satwant Singh in the suit filed, in which the petitioner filed an application for being impleaded as one of the defendants so that he could support the claim made in the suit. However, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner, the application was rejected, though the fact remains that he is necessary party and any judgment delivered in the case of Satwant Singh would certainly effect his rights as well. At the time of hearing, on a query by the court, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that he had filed a separate suit challenging the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, which is pending in the court below, though different. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once the petitioner has already filed a suit to enforce his rights challenging the resolution passed by the Municipal Council, he Civil Revision No. 306 of 2010 [2] cannot force himself to be a party in the suit filed by another person, though he may be similarly situated. He can very well prosecute his rights in the independent suit filed by him. The plaintiff in a case is dominus litus. He cannot be compelled to contest the suit against any person against his wishes. The mere stand of the petitioner that he will only support the case of respondent No.1- Satwant Singh is not sufficient to implead him as one of the defendant in the suit, once the plaintiff therein does not want the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.1.2010 mk