Judgment : Even though the matter comes upon an application, but with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally. This petition has been filed against the order dated 15.11.2010, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur in appeal No.16/10, whereby the petitioner's application for impleadment has been rejected. The facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal and Gyaneshwar Kumar Agarwal respectively were allotted a plot No.A-35 in Tulsi Nagar Vikas Samiti, Jaipur by the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter 'JDA') under the Provisions of Section 54B of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1982) preceded by an order under Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 and a lease-deed came to be registered on 20.12.2007 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur in respect of the said plot. The petitioner-Samiti appears to have filed a complaint before the JDA with regard to the issue of lease deed dated 20.12.2007 to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 in respect of plot No.A-35 inter alia on the ground that the aforesaid plot constitutes a part of drain and that in the event the said lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued by the JDA were to stand the entire colony would be put into jeopardy in the event of heavy monsoon and no outlet therefore – the existing drainage having been compromised by the grant of lease-deed over the land which was stated to be part of the drain. On the complaint by the petitioner-Society or otherwise, the JDA appears to have cancelled the lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 vide its order dated 21.05.2008. Aggrieved of the order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the JDA, the respondents, Bhuvneshwar Kumar Agarwal and Gyaneshwar Kumar Agarwal filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982. The petitioner-Samiti moved an application before the Appellate Tribunal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking to be impleaded as a party primarily on the ground that as the lease-deed issued in favour of respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 20.12.2007 had been cancelled on 21.05.2008 by the JDA on the complaint of the petitioner-Samiti, the petitioner-Samiti was a necessary or in any event a proper party in the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The JDA Appellate Tribunal having considered the matter came to a conclusion that the issue before it was with regard to the cancellation of lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 by the JDA without as much as an opportunity of hearing to the lessee and in the context of the dispute for its adjudication, the applicant-Samiti was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the appeal. The JDA Appellate Tribunal thus dismissed the petitioner-Samiti's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. The counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has vehemently argued that in the event the lease-deed dated 20.12.2007 issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and cancelled on 21.05.2008 were allowed to subsist and the order of cancellation of lease-deed dated 21.05.2008 were to set aside by the Appellate Tribunal in the appeal before it, the residential colony adjoining the said plot No.A-35 would be put to imminent threat of massive flood and damages in the event of a downpour or excessive rain during a good monsoon as it is the contention of the petitioner-Samiti that the said plot No.A-35 is carved out of a major drain through which storm water during the monsoon flows. It is submitted that in these circumstances, in the background facts of the case, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have allowed the petitioner's application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr. [ (2005) 11 SCC 403 ] to contend that under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a person may be added as a party to a suit either when he ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined or when without his presence, the question in the suit cannot be completely decided and that the power of a court to add a party to a proceedings cannot be dependent solely on the ground whether such party has the interest in the suit property and the question to be addressed while deciding an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is whether the legal right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has also relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukmani Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur & Ors [RLR 2000 (1) 120] wherein this Court held that the neighbour would be adversely affected if the steps were to be put on the road by one of residents of the colony entailing the shortening of the width of the road and such a neighbour would thus be entitled to be impleaded as party in a suit where a dispute was pending between the Municipal Corporation and the resident of the neighbourhood regarding his right to have steps over a public road. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti submits that in the event, the order of cancellation of leasedeed challenged before the JDA Appellate Tribunal under Section 83(8)(a) of the Act of 1982 were to be set aside, the petitioner-Samiti would be adversely affected inasmuch as the house over a portion of the drain would endanger the houses of the members of the Samiti through floods consequent to the obstruction to free flow of drain water during heavy rains in a good monsoon. It is submitted that consequently, to preempt an adverse affect of a particular outcome in the appeal before the JDA Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner-Samiti was entitled to be impleaded as a party. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 would submit that the question before the Appellate Tribunal is as to whether a lease-deed issued by the JDA and registered with the Sub-Registrar under the provisions of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 could be cancelled by the JDA without as much as even an opportunity of hearing to the lessee. Counsel further submits that the issue before the Appellate Tribunal also is with regard to the jurisdiction of the JDA in cancelling a registered lease-deed which in terms of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act can only be so done by filing a suit for declaration. It is submitted that in the context of the dispute before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner-Samiti has no lis or even interest and the dispute can be efficiently and effectively determined even in the absence of the petitioner- Samiti. It is submitted that in the context of the dispute before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner-Samiti has no lis or even interest and the dispute can be efficiently and effectively determined even in the absence of the petitioner- Samiti. It is further submitted that on the plain language of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the petitioner-Samiti cannot be impleaded as a party inasmuch as its presence is not necessary in the dispute before the Appellate Tribunal to enable the court (Tribunal) effectively and completely adjudicating upon and settling of the question involved in the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. It is submitted that the doctrine of dominus litus allows a plaintiff / petitioner to choose the parties to litigate against and seek relief against. Counsel further submits that the participation of the petitioner-Samiti in the appeal would only lead to complications in the hearing of the respondents' appeal and delay the adjudication thereof as the petitioner7 Samiti has an animus against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and for this reason, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment filed by the petitioner-Samiti has been rightly dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, appearing for the JDA submits that for one the petitioner-Samiti is being presumptive in assuming that the lease-deed was cancelled by the JDA on its complaints. Second, he submits that there is no occasion for the petitioner-Samiti to apprehend that the correct facts resulted in the cancellation of the leasedeed dated 20.12.2007 will not be brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that a detailed reply to the appeal will be filed before the Appellate Tribunal, if has not already been filed, within a period of four weeks and the JDA undertakes to pursue the matter before the Appellate Tribunal with all vigor and sincerity. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-Samiti as also the respondents and perused the writ petition. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner-Samiti as also the respondents and perused the writ petition. Having considered the arguments of the parties and the impugned order dated 15.11.2010, passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal, I am of the view that in the state of law with regard to the impleadment of a party as detailed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as also the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (Supra), a party can be impleaded in a pending proceedings only where such a party ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or defendant in the proceedings in issue and is not so joined or otherwise without his presence the questions in the suit/proceedings could not be completely and effectively decided. It is also clear that until a party's legal right (as a right conferred by law) is not likely to be affected in proceedings before a court or Tribunal, such a party cannot be impleaded on his mere askance and throw a spanner in the wheels of the plaintiff's case. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has not been able to show any crystallized right conferred by any law on the members of the petitioner-Samiti which is likely to be affected in the event of the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the JDA Appellate Tribunal to set aside the order of cancellation dated 21.05.2008 is allowed. Counsel for the petitioner-Samiti has argued vehemently on the fundamental rights of the members of the petitioner-Samiti on the basis of its case that in the event the lease-deed issued to the respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 20.12.2007 and cancelled on 21.05.2008 were to be restored by the Appellate Tribunal, the rain water drain would be covered resulting in an imminent threat of floods to the houses of the members of the petitioner9 Samiti. But that in my considered opinion is not the issue in the appeal laid by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the JDA Appellate Tribunal. The issue is regarding the JDA's jurisdiction to cancel a registered lease-deed contrary to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act (Section 31) and without as much as complying with the principal of natural justice. The impleadment of the petitioner-Samiti will only lead to formulation and determination of issues not arising from the pleadings of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The issue is regarding the JDA's jurisdiction to cancel a registered lease-deed contrary to the provisions of the Specific Relief Act (Section 31) and without as much as complying with the principal of natural justice. The impleadment of the petitioner-Samiti will only lead to formulation and determination of issues not arising from the pleadings of the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The case of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the JDA Appellate Tribunal will thus take a different color and complexion and the respondents in their proceedings required to contest a wholly new cause unrelated to their own original cause of action and ground formulated thereon. The counsel for the petitioner-Samiti, in my considered opinion, overlooks the fact that if the petitioner- Samiti have an enforceable right against the JDA or the respondent Nos.1 & 2, they are free to take their own proceedings such by way of filing a reference before the Appellate Tribunal if the occasion so arises under 83(8)(b) of the Act of 1982 or otherwise even approaching this Court by way of a writ petition if the Appellate Tribunal were to pass an order in favour of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 which in the estimation of the petitioner-Samiti works adversely on their rights. I am of the firm view in terms of the doctrine of dominus litus and provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Appellate Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the petitioner-Samiti's application for impleadment in the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Stay application or the application, if any, are also dismissed.