JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Revdar, District Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') whereby petitioner's application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the plaintiffs-respondents No.1 & 2 had filed a suit against Gram-Panchayat, seeking mandatory injunction, restraining them from interfering with his possession. 3. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner moved an application dated 04.01.2017 seeking his impleadment, inter alia contending that the plaintiffs have no right over the contentious property and the same belongs to Gram-Panchayat; the disputed land is situated near the land of the applicant (Babu Lal); and that he wants to take care of the cause of the public so also his individual rights, for which he should be impleaded as a party, else it would pre-judicially effect petitioner's right. 4. 4. Learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application with the following observation :- ^^mijksDr oS/kkfud fLFkr ds ifjizs{; esa iz'uxr vkosnu i= dh foospuk dh tk; rks ;g U;k;ky; ds le{k Li"V gksrk gS fd gLrxr okn&oknh }kjk izfroknhx.k ds fo:) dsoy LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ckcr o vkKkid vkns'k ds lEcU/k esa yk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZ }kjk Lo;a vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd iz'uxr okn Hkwfe ij fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks dksbZ Hkh gd o vf/kdkj ugha gS iz'uxr Hkwfe izkFkhZ ds iM+ksl esa fLFkr gS bl rjg Lo;a izkFkhZ ;g Lohdkj djrk gS fd fooknxzLr lEifr esa mldk dksbZ gd ugha gS og mls [kjhnus dh bPNk j[krk gS u gh izkFkhZ us vius izkFkZuk i= esa o nkSjkus cgl ;s tkfgj fd;k gS fd oks fdl izdkj oknhx.k }kjk fd;s x;s okn esa vko';d i{kdkj ;k mfpr i{kdkj gSA izkFkhZ }kjk vius izkFkZuk i= esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd fooknxzLr lEifr fu;ekuqlkj vke uhykeh ds vuqlkj xzke iapk;r HkVk.kk dks mDr Hkw[k.M+ dks fn;k tkuk pkfg;sA ftlls ;g tkfgj gksrk gS izkFkhZ dk mDr iz'uxr Hkwfe esa dksbZ gd vf/kdkj ugha gS] uk gh oknhx.k }kjk izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ vuqrks"k pkgk x;k gSA ,sls nkos ds vUnj oknh vius nkos dk "Dominus Litus" gSA ftldks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izkFkhZ dks oknh ds fo:) okn esa i{kdkj ds :i esa la;ksftr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vr% izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= varxZr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vr% izkFkhZ dk izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 1 fu;e 10 lh0ih0lh0 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 5. Mr. V. R. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the order impugned dated 28.02.2017 passed by learned Trial Court submitted that Trial Court has committed a serious error of law in rejecting petitioner's application seeking impleadment. He invited attention of this Court towards the earlier litigation and an order dated 27.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Collector, Sirohi, whereby the plaintiff revision petition had been rejected. 6. Mr. Choudhary, contended that while preferring the above referred revision petition, plaintiff had impleaded petitioner as a party respondents and it was pursuant to petitioner's pursuation, his revision petition was rejected. 6. Mr. Choudhary, contended that while preferring the above referred revision petition, plaintiff had impleaded petitioner as a party respondents and it was pursuant to petitioner's pursuation, his revision petition was rejected. In light of these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that either the plaintiff ought to have challenged the said order dated 27.02.2017, by way of taking appropriate legal remedies or he should have impleaded the petitioner as a party defendant in the present suit also which has been filed for the same land and for the same cause. 7. Mr. Choudhary further contended that the Gram-Panchayat is not at all pursuing the matter and in such situation, presence of petitioner is necessary. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 9. Mr. Choudhary's, submission that as plaintiff had implead petitioner as a party respondent in the revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994; he was required to implead the petitioner in the present suit also cannot be accepted. It cannot be urged as a universal rule that if the plaintiff had chosen implead the petitioner in some litigation he has to implead the petitioner in each litigation he institutes. The plaintiff is dominus litus of his case and he should be left to decide against whom he wants to litigate. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to show any vested right or interest in the contentious property, whereupon the plaintiff has allegedly done encroachment. If the land in question is of Gram-Panchayat, the petitioner cannot interject in the proceedings, until and unless he shows infraction of any of his rights. 11. The petitioner is a busy body; merely because his land/house is situated near the disputed land, he cannot pray for his impleadment. 12. This Court does not find any substance in petitioner's writ, asserting his right of impleadment. The writ petition is dismissed.