JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 18.05.2022 passed by District Judge Cadre, Judge Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur in CS No.7/2018, CIS No.CS-537/2019, whereby he dismissed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC by the defendant No.1/petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 had filed the suit for recovery against the petitioner in which petitioner had filed the written statement after framing of issues at the time of evidence of respondent No.1. Petitioner had filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial court vide order dated 18.05.2022 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner wanted to implead Dr. Avnish Chucklaira as one of the defendant in the suit because initially the agreement was entered between Vita Hee Care Trust of Dr.Avnish Chucklaira and petitioner on 04.08.2022. According to said agreement Blood Bank was to be constructed from the loan to be made available by the aforesaid trust of Dr. Avinash Chucklaira. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that in continuation of this agreement, another agreement dated 01.10.2013 also executed between the parties in which area of Blood Bank was increased to 15,500 sq. ft. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Dr. Avinash Chucklaira provided an amount of Rs.2802500/- which have been paid to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Dr. Avinash Chucklaira thereafter had not paid any further donation and the respondent No.1-Hanuman Prasad who is the real brother of Dr. Avinash Chucklaira. They hatched a criminal conspiracy and continued the construction of building without any contract. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that Vita Hee Care Trust failed to perform its obligation as per agreement dated 04.08.2012 and 01.10.2013. So, society had terminated their contract vide letter dated 25.05.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that these transaction clearly shows that Dr. Avinash Chucklaira is necessary party for adjudicating the suit proceeding. So, order of the trial court be set aside and trial court is directed to implead Dr. Avinash Chucklaira as a re- spondent- defendant. 3. So, society had terminated their contract vide letter dated 25.05.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that these transaction clearly shows that Dr. Avinash Chucklaira is necessary party for adjudicating the suit proceeding. So, order of the trial court be set aside and trial court is directed to implead Dr. Avinash Chucklaira as a re- spondent- defendant. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that order of trial court does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. Dr. Avinash Chucklaira is neither necessary nor a proper party for adjudicating the suit filed by the respondent No.1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that as per contention of petitioner, if Dr. Avinash Chucklaira does not make any payment to the defendant then obligation of the petitioner does not get absolved from making payment because work order issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 is entitled to realize the amount as per the work order dated 20.04.2013. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that as per said work order, petitioner and Dr. Avinash Chucklaira was neither the party nor the signatory to the document. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that there was no tripartite agreement between the petitioner, respondent No.1 and Dr. Avinash Chucklaira. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that plaintiff is dominus litus in the matter. So, he cannot be compelled to array a party as defendant against whom he is not claiming any relief. Trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. So, petition be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon the judgment in the matters of Ramesh Chand Agrawal v. Mohan Lal & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4947/2012 and Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Ors v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Ors; Civil Appeal No.6370/2022; 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 6. It is admitted position that respondent No.1 is claiming the amount as per the work order dated 20.04.2013 that was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is also admitted position that in said agreement, Dr. Avinash Chucklaira was neither a party nor a signatory in the document. 6. It is admitted position that respondent No.1 is claiming the amount as per the work order dated 20.04.2013 that was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is also admitted position that in said agreement, Dr. Avinash Chucklaira was neither a party nor a signatory in the document. Plaintiff in present suit has not sought any relief against Dr. Avinash Chucklaira. In my considered opinion, trial court rightly held that Dr. Avinash Chucklaira is neither necessary nor a proper party for adjudicating the suit. So, present petition filed, by the petitioner is, being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.