Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the plaintiff in a suit, being 'dominus litis', cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief.A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Sudhir Kumar Jain observed,"Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance."The bench however made it clear that the above does not mean that a third party can never be impleaded as necessary party. It observed,"A third party is entitled to be impleaded as necessary party if that party is likely to suffer any legal injury due to outcome of the suit. The doctrine of dominus litis should not be over stretched in impleading the parties. The court can order a person to be impleaded as necessary party if his presence is required to decide real matter in dispute effectively. Merely because the, plaintiff does not choose to implead a person is not sufficient for rejection of an application for being impleaded. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC are having wide amplitude in operation."This case was regarding the impleadment of a party to a suit concerning possession and damages of a property. The applicant stated that he had substantial interest in the property in question and as such was a necessary party to the suit. Briefly the facts of the case are that the original lessee of the suit plot, gifted the plot to the successors. Meanwhile, GMMCL, a tenant of the said property, in terms of settlement, agreed to vacate the property with condition that GMMCL would be inducted as a tenant in a flat after reconstruction of the property. The lessees of the property then entered into a Collaboration Agreement with M/S Kailash Nath & Associates for building and development of multi-story Group Housing Scheme (Gauri Apartments) on said plot and GMMCL entered into an agreement with the lessees to hand over a flat in the apartment to GMMCL. GMMCL assigned its right in respect of the said flat to the applicant and thereafter, the applicant sublet the flat to the respondent. The Appellant (original plaintiff) also entered into an agreement with the lessees and the partners of M/S Kailash Nath & Associated for purchase of a flat in the apartment. The applicant filed an application for Directions before the Supreme Court to keep available vacant possession of flat. The appellant handed over possession of the flat bearing to GMMCL through the assignee i.e. the applicant. The applicant, in this case, claimed his right, title and interest in respect of the flat on basis of Deed of assignment executed in its favor by original tenant GMMCL and thereafter, the applicant sublet the flat to the respondent (erstwhile Birla VXL).In this case, the court recognised that there was a long history of litigation amongst different claimants of the flat in different capacity. The applicant was aware of the pendency of present suit between the appellant and the respondent. The applicant also participated in legal and judicial proceedings initiated before the courts of Additional Rent Controller, Rent Control Tribunal and thereafter before the High Court. The applicant in past in various litigation between the concerned parties had raised its impleadment which was suitably adjudicated. The court held that–"The issue of impleadment of the applicant as necessary party in present suit as such has already been adjudicated finally and the applicant cannot be allowed to raise issue of impleadment again and again particularly at appellate stage. The applicant can also not be allowed to change its stand regarding imlpeadment first by opposing application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and thereafter by filing application for its impleadment which is under disposal and it would not be in interest of justice. The applicant has already initiated appropriate legal proceedings to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the flat in suit for possession and damages filed against the respondent which was dismissed by the court of the Additional District Judge and Appeal has already been disposed of."The court also stated that the appellant in plaint was alleging that the respondent is trespassers in respect of the flat and the respondent is using the flat without any right. It was further held that the appellant being dominus litis is required to establish his right, title and interest in respect of the property. The court opined that–"The presence of applicant is not necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in present litigation. The applicant as such cannot be impleaded against...

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | Plaintiff Being 'Dominus Litis' Can't Be Compelled To Fight A Person Against Whom He Does Not Claim Any Relief: Delhi High Court

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers