Judgment :- This civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/ petitioner/first defendant aggrieved against the order dated 06.03.2008 in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 in O.S.No.99 of 2005 passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi, Coimbatore in dismissing the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code to strike out the revision petitioners name in the suit as a wrong person. 2. The trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.1022 of 2005 has inter alia observing that on perusal of the records it is found that in the suit the respondent/plaintiff has claimed the relief only against the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant and after considering the arguments advanced on both sides as well as the affidavit and counter affidavit of the parties, the Court is of the opinion that it is impossible to decide whether the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant is the necessary party to the suit or not at the present stage and it can be decided only after full-fledged trial and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant urges before this Court that the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 dated 06.03.2008 is manifestly unjust and materially irregular and improper and that the trial Court has erred to appreciate the proposition of law laid down under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of Civil Procedure Code and further that the issue as to whether the revision petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the suit has not been dealt with by the trial Court and that it is the categorical case of the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant that he has nothing to do with the suit property and hence, no relief could be claimed against him and that the trial Court has not appreciated the written arguments filed on behalf of the revision petitioner/petitioner/first defendant and therefore, prays for allowing the revision in the interest of justice. 4. 4. In the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff, the relief of permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioner/first defendant, their men, agents and servants from in anyway constructing the school building or any other building other than the industrial purpose at the suit properties and the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants 2 to 7 (in the suit) to take immediate action to prevent the revision petitioner/first defendant from constructing school or any other building other than the industrial purpose at the suit properties are sought for. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, neither the revision petitioner nor the first defendant school is the owner of the suit property and hence, the revision petitioner is a wrong person in the suit and as such, the revision petitioner has been improperly joined in the suit and therefore, the revision petitioners name should be struck off from the suit. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contends that the revision petitioner/first defendant has already violated the order of the trial court passed in I.A.No.175 of 2005 dated 29.04.2005 by completing the construction instead of maintaining the status-quo and further the revision petitioner has inducted his wife S.Bagyam into the suit property as per the Advocate Commissioners report and hence, the contempt application is pending against the revision petitioner and only with a view to protract the matter, the revision petitioner has filed the I.A.No.1022 of 2005 and since the same is without any substance, it has to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that Smt.S.Bagyam W/o.Nagaraj has been sanctioned with the building permission as per proceedings dated 011. 2003 of the Kattampatti Panchayat Union in respect of Survey No.280/2, 281/1 and that the said permission for constructing new building/additional building is for the period from 011. 2003 to 06.05.2004 (for six moths). Admittedly, the proceedings dated 011. 2003 issued by the Panchayat Union has not been projected on the side of revision petitioner/first defendant before the trial Court while deciding I.A.No.1022 of 2005. 8. In the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the revision petitioner/first defendant, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the written arguments projected before the trial Court in I.A.No.1022 of 2005. 2003 issued by the Panchayat Union has not been projected on the side of revision petitioner/first defendant before the trial Court while deciding I.A.No.1022 of 2005. 8. In the typed set of papers filed on behalf of the revision petitioner/first defendant, the petitioner has enclosed a copy of the written arguments projected before the trial Court in I.A.No.1022 of 2005. From the written arguments filed on the side of revision petitioner, it is seen that the contention of the revision petitioner is that he is not the owner of the property and that the contempt proceedings against the revision petitioner is not at all maintainable and since Smt.S.Bagyam become the lawful owner of the suit property on 110. 2003 there is no necessity for the revision petitioner to induct his wife as the property owner in 2005 and that the first respondent/plaintiff has misused and abused the process of law and that the revision petitioner has sold 90 cents in S.F.No.280/2 to Smt.P.Manimekalai as per sale deed dated 211. 2000 bearing Document No.3303 of 2000 and by virtue of a registered settlement deed dated 110. 2003, the revision petitioner has settled his ownership of 2.05 acres in S.F.No.281/1 and 0.45 acres in S.F.No.280/2 totaling 2.50 acres to his wife Smt.S.Bagyam and these documents will prove that the revision petitioner/first defendant is no more the owner of the suit property i.e. S.F.No.281/1 from 110. 2003 onwards etc. 9. Before the trial Court in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 the sale deed dated 18.02.1998 in favour of the revision petitioner, the sale deed dated 211. 2000 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of Manimekalai and the settlement deed dated 110. 2003 executed by the revision petitioner in favour of his wife Bagyam and the building permission issued by the Panchayat dated 011. 2003 have not been marked on the side of revision petitioner. In fact, no oral evidence in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 has been adduced on the side of revision petitioner. Likewise, no oral evidence and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of respondent/plaintiff. 2003 have not been marked on the side of revision petitioner. In fact, no oral evidence in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 has been adduced on the side of revision petitioner. Likewise, no oral evidence and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of respondent/plaintiff. In this connection, it is useful to refer to Rule 32 of civil rules of practice which speaks of proof of facts by affidavit and the same runs as follows: "Proof of facts by affidavit.- Any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall, unless otherwise provided by these rules, ordered by the court, be proved by affidavit, but the judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally; and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded and exhibits marked, in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibit shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment." 10. A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff indicates that as against the revision petitioner/first defendant a relief of permanent injunction in regard to the construction of school building or any other building other than the industrial purpose at the suit properties and a further relief of mandatory injunction by directing the defendants 2 to 7 to take immediate action in order to prevent the revision petitioner/first defendant from constructing school or any other building other than the industrial purpose at the suit properties are sought for by the respondent/plaintiff. It is pertinent to point out that it is the case of respondent/plaintiff that the suit properties described in the suit schedule are notified industrial area which includes S.F.No.281/1 281/2, 278/1 Part, 293/1 Part, 294/1 and 294/2 as per G.O.Ms.No.661 H & UD dated 110. 1994 and that the suit properties are notified as industrial area by the 5th defendant and hence, no construction except to the industrial purpose shall be allowed etc. Whether a person is a necessary party or he should be struck off as defendant in the suit is an issue which must be decided in regard to the averments in plaint and the matter in controversy. No wonder, the power to strike out as well as to add parties may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings by a Court of law even without any application being filed by a party. No wonder, the power to strike out as well as to add parties may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings by a Court of law even without any application being filed by a party. However, the power of the Court is one of discretion to be exercised judicially taking note of all the relevant attendant circumstances of the case. At the same time, one cannot brush aside an important fact that the respondent/plaintiff is the dominus litus in the case. However, the theory of dominus litus ought not to be over stretched. 11. In as much as the respondent/plaintiff seeks relief against the first defendant school in the suit by placing reliance on the G.O.Ms.No.661 H & UD dated 110. 1994, this Court opines that it is not a fit and proper stage for the revision petitioner/first defendant to seek the relief of striking out his name in the suit O.S.No.99 of 2005 as wrong person in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 and in that view of the matter, the civil revision petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the order dated 06.03.2008 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1022 of 2005 is confirmed for the reasons assigned by this Court in this revision. Since the suit is of the year 2005, this Court directs the trial Court to dispose of the said suit within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order so as to put at rest all the controversies and contentions involved in the suit and to report compliance to this Court. It is further ordered that the trial Court while disposing of the suit should act independently uninfluenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this revision. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.