JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has besseched to quash and set-aside the order dated 7th February, 2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the applications filed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC as also under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that one suit came to be filed before the learned Additional District Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan under the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1885 against the petitioner-defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant submitted that the deceased Rakesh Chugh died on account of very high level of sugar and not because of carelessness or negligent act of treating Doctor. Hence, no cause of action arose in the matter and the petition deserved to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. This prayer was dismissed by the learned trial court. 3. The second prayer was made that the Insurance Company was a necessary party in the suit, hence the Insurance Company should be impleaded as a party-defendant. 4. The learned trial court dismissed this prayer also on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had not sought any relief against the Insurance Company, hence it was not required to implead the Insurance Company as a party-defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant assails only the latter part of the order, whereby the prayer, made under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead the Insurance Company as a party-respondent, has been dismissed. 6. Learned trial court is found to have relied upon the judgment rendered in AIR 1989 Delhi 274 and observed that the Insurance Company was neither necessary party nor proper party in the suit as no relief was sought for against it. 7. There is a distinction between necessary party and proper party. A necessary party is one without whose presence, no effective decree or order can be passed. A proper party is one in whose absence a decree or order can be passed, but whose presence is necessary for complete, final and effective adjudication of all issues involved in the suit. 7. There is a distinction between necessary party and proper party. A necessary party is one without whose presence, no effective decree or order can be passed. A proper party is one in whose absence a decree or order can be passed, but whose presence is necessary for complete, final and effective adjudication of all issues involved in the suit. In other words, a necessary party is a party, who ought to have been joined as a party; and a proper party is a party, who should be joined as a party for convenience or expediency. 8. It is relevant to record that this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Garg v. Ashok Kumar Pansari and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14874/2009) , while placing reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of United Provinces v. Atiqua Begum reported in AIR 1941 FC 16, vide order dated 10.05.2011 observed thus: "It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is dominus litis and normally it is for him to select his adversary from whom he seeks relief and it was not for a Court to ask him to join any other person as a party to the suit. It is not province of a Court of law to interfere with that right. If a plaintiff does not join the necessary or proper party, consequences will ensue and he will suffer. It is not a matter for the Court to worry about." 9. The trial court is found to have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is found to be just and proper and to my firm view, warrants no intervention. 10. For the reasons stated above, writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit stands dismissed in limine. 11. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******