AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 208 wordsS.K. Seth, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an interlocutory order dated 16.8.2012 passed by the trial Court. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the remaining respondents.
In the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to join as defendants in the suit. According to them they are necessary party to the suit.
By the Order impugned, trial Court rejected the said application. Hence this petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that generally a plaintiff is dominus litis and he has the choice to implead those persons as defendants against whom he vindicates his right. Adding unnecessary parties to the suit changes the complex of the litigation and should be avoided unless the Court finds that such addition would enable it to adjudicate upon the controversy effectively and completely. Nothing has been pointed out to satisfy this aspect. We therefore find no illegality with the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction under 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is therefore dismissed summarily at the threshold.