Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 3870 (MAD)

Valliammal & Another v. Thangamuthu & Others

2008-10-23

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- This civil revision petition is projected by the revision petitioners/petitioners/plaintiffs as against the order passed in I.A.No.692 of 2006 in O.S.No.254 of 2003 dated 14.07.2006 by the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur in dismissing the application for impleading proposed parties under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 2. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs have filed I.A.No.692 of 2006 praying permission of the Court below to implead the proposed parties as defendants 5 to 8 in the main case on the ground that the proposed parties are necessary parties and if they are not added, the same will cause serious prejudice to them. 3. It appears that the counter has been filed by the first respondent and adopted by the respondents 2 to 4 (before the trial Court) where it is stated that no proper reasons have been assigned for impleading the proposed parties and that already the necessary details have been furnished in the plaint itself and therefore, the application is to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court, after contest, has dismissed the I.A.No.692 of 2006 observing that the civil suit is pending and that when the civil suit is determined, then the decision in the said suit will bind the Revenue Department and as such, there is no necessity to add the Tahsildar, or the Revenue Divisional Officer, or the Collector etc. 5. It is an axiomatic fact that the plaintiffs are the dominus litus in the suit filed by them. The doctrine of dominus litus is applied to an individual though not initially a party has made himself one, by intervention or otherwise and has assumed the entire control and responsibility for one side and is treated by the Court as liable for costs as a person who is really and directly in the suit as a party. However, the said theory of dominus litus should not be stretched too far in regard to the impleading of parties because of the fact that it is the primordial duty of the Court of law to ensure that in deciding the real matter in dispute an individual is necessary party, the Court can order such individual to be impleaded. At the same time, the person to be impleaded must be a necessary party in the suit so as to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the question involved in the suit. At the same time, the person to be impleaded must be a necessary party in the suit so as to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate the question involved in the suit. Therefore, a clear finding has to be given whether the party is a necessary or a proper party. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the proposed parties sought to be impleaded by the revision petitioners are not necessary and proper parties and viewed in that perspective, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the civil revision petition and accordingly, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed in the interest of justice. The order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.692 of 2006 dated 14.07.2006 is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.