IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 416 of 2009 Date of decision: 29.09.2010 Partapo Petitioner. Versus Rattan Chand and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For the petitioner: Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the respondent No.1: Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed by the petitioner, who is defendant No.1 before the learned trial Court for impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary Revenue and Settlement Collector as defendants in the suit has been rejected. 2. The suit out of which the present petition arises was filed by respondent No.1 Rattan Chand against defendants No. 1 to 6. In this suit the plaintiff wanted to recover the sale consideration and other expenses, interest, etc. in respect of the sale deed executed by the defendant No.1, who also acted on behalf of defendants No.2 to 6, in favour of the plaintiff. The 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 case of the defendants appears to be that despite such sale deed the possession of land was never handed over to them since proforma defendants No. 7 to 9 obtained a decree after execution of the sale deed that they are in possession of the suit land. 3. The contention raised by the petitioner is that in the revenue record defendants No. 1 to 6 had been shown as owner in possession and they executed the sale deed believing such entries to be correct and therefore, the State of H.P. through Secretary Revenue and Settlement Collector are necessary parties to the suit. The learned trial Court rejected this application on the ground that this plea, if at all available to the defendants No. 1 to 6, was available in the suit filed against them by defendants No. 7 to 9 or proceedings arising out of that suit but not in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff. 4. It has been urged by Shri Vikas Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff in case the State of Himachal Pradesh and the Settlement Collector is added to the parties to the suit. He further submitted that in case these parties are added it may cut down the litigation. It is well settled law that it is the plaintiff who is the dominus litius of the suit. If a party is a necessary party then the plaintiff can be directed to array such 3 party as a respondent in the suit. Here the State of H.P. is neither a necessary nor a proper party since it is nobody’s case that the State was the owner of the suit land. If there was any error in the revenue record the remedy of the petitioner may lie elsewhere but not in the present suit. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 1st November, 2010. 29th September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™