Judgment : 1. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the purpose of the present Writ Petitions, respondent Nos. 1 to 27 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 23 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013 are not necessary parties. 2. Mr. Nagori, the learned counsel appears for contesting respondent No. 28 in W.P. No. 270 of 2013 and respondent No. 24 in W.P. No. 422 of 2013. 3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 4. The present petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who had filed Suit for simplicitor injunction. The present respondent Nos. 28 and 24 respectively have filed application purportedly under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading them as parties. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petitions are filed. 5. Mr. Sangeet, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs are the "dominus litis" of their case. The Court on the ground that the Suit is for declaration and injunction has added the present respondent Nos. 28 and 24 respectively as parties to the Suit, whereas the Suit is for injunction. The learned counsel further submits that no relief is claimed against the said added respondents. The learned counsel submits that no right, title and interest of the said added respondents is involved in the suit property. 6. Mr. Nagori, the learned counsel for the added respondents submits that though the Suit is for simplicitor injunction, the added respondent is necessary and proper party to the Suit. There are many members of the said Samasta Kaumbhar Samaj. It is for the convenience, the names of the defendants were appearing. Even in 7/12 extract, the name of the added respondent had appeared. As the respondent has right, title and interest in the suit property, the Court has rightly added it as party. The learned counsel submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs is bad and illegal and the said added respondent would challenge the same. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Order. 8. It is trite that the plaintiffs are the "dominus litis" of their case. The learned counsel submits that the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs is bad and illegal and the said added respondent would challenge the same. 7. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Order. 8. It is trite that the plaintiffs are the "dominus litis" of their case. The Court while passing the order, was labouring under the impression that the Suit is for declaration and injunction. However, from the perusal of the plaint, it is manifest that no relief of declaration is claimed and the Suit is for simplicitor injunction. Any order passed of injunction would bind only the parties to the Suit. The proposed party who is not party to the Suit, would not be bound by the order in the Suit. The contention of the learned counsel for the added respondents that they want to challenge the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs is concerned, the same can not be considered in the present matter. The proposed respondents are at liberty to take available recourse for the said purpose. However, in the present Suit, the said contention can not be considered. 9. In view of the above reasons, the impugned order can not be sustained. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the application for addition of parties is rejected. 10. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.