The Gauhati High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot oppose the impleadment of a proper party merely on the ground that, being dominus litis, the plaintiff has the right to choose the persons against whom they wish to litigate.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “...the general rule with regard to impleadment of parties, that the plaintiff being dominus litis may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate, gives way to the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to implead either necessary or proper parties, as the case may be.”

The observation came in a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Civil Judge Silchar, by which an application seeking impleadment of respondent as a defendant in the title suit was allowed.

The petitioner had filed the suit seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property, eviction of the defendants and permanent injunction. During its pendency, the respondent sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, stating that he had taken a room situated over the suit property on monthly rent from one of the defendants, that a tenancy agreement had been executed and that he was running a retail electric goods shop from the premises. The trial court allowed the application and directed his impleadment.

The petitioner argued that the respondent was not a necessary party and that, being dominus litis, the plaintiff had the option to choose who may be impleaded as a defendant. It was also submitted that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.

The respondent, however, argued that he was in possession of the suit property and that his impleadment was required for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

The High Court noted that there was no dispute that the respondent was in possession of a room in the suit premises and was running his shop there. It found that his presence would enable the Trial Court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute.

The Court said, “As such, there is no doubt that his presence in the suit as a defendant would enable the Trial Court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. As such, not to speak of whether he is a necessary party or not, there is no dispute that Respondent No. 1 is certainly a proper party in the suit.”

The Court further held “As such, the exercise of discretion by the court under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in impleading the present Respondent No. 1 in the above-mentioned suit does not appear to be an arbitrary exercise of the said discretion in any view of the matter.”

On the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, the High Court reiterated that supervisory power has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection.

“It is a well-settled proposition of law that the supervisory power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. Such an exercise of power may be justified if the Court below has exercised its discretion with arbitrariness, capriciously and without following the principles of natural justice,” the Court said.

The Court found that the Trial Court had given valid reasons for exercising its discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and therefore declined to interfere with the order.

“However, it is not the case in the present case, and it appears that the Trial Court has given valid reasons for exercise of its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading the present respondent as defendant in the above-mentioned suit. As such, this Court does not find it a case where extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to interfere with the impugned order.”

The High Court accordingly dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim order staying the suit.

Case No.: CRP(IO) No. 490/2024

Case Title: Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors.

LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 144

Click Here To Read the Judgement