ORDER : (Nupur Bhati, J.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- "A] By an appropriate writ order or direction the order impugned dated 30.05.2018 (Annex.5) passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nimbaheda District Chittorgarh may kindly be quashed and set aside. B] By an appropriate writ order or direction, the application of the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC may kindly be allowed as prayed for. Any other appropriate order or relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner." 2. The facts relevant for the present controversy are that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 - plaintiffs filed a suit for preemption being Civil Original Suit No.45/2016 against the petitioner-defendant and respondent No.5 in which it was averred that the respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs and respondent No.5-defendant No.1 belong to the family of deceased Chhoga Lal, who was having a property at Nimbaheda which was never partitioned amongst five sons of Shri Chhoga Lal as respondent No.1-defendant No.1 Bhanwar Lal sold two rooms from the disputed property to the petitioner-defendant No.2 through registered sale-deed dated 26.11.20212 and as the respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs are having preemptory right over the said property and, thus, they are entitled to purchase the said property for the amount mentioned in the sale-deed. 3. The petitioner-defendant No.2 filed written statement and denied the right of preemption to the respondent Nos.1 to 4- plaintiffs and also denied to have sold the property without information to the respondents-plaintiffs and since they were not interested to purchase the property, therefore, it was sold to the petitioner-defendant No.2. 4. Thereafter, based on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the matter was posted for evidence of the plaintiffs. At this stage, the petitioner-defendant No.2 moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC praying thereby to add new para No.9 in the additional pleas of written statement and further submitted that all the legal heirs of Chhoga Lal have not been impleaded as plaintiffs in the suit and thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. 5. The respondents-plaintiffs filed reply to the application aforesaid and contended that the suit is not for partition and all the legal heirs of deceased Shri Chhoga Lal are not necessary party to the suit. 6. The learned Additional District Judge, No.2, Nimbaheda (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned court below') dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant vide order dated 03.05.2018. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court below has committed grave error in dismissing the application of the petitioner-defendant. The suit has been filed for preemption and in the plaint, it was admitted by the respondents-plaintiffs that the property belonged to Chhoga Lal, who was having five sons and the property was not partitioned and in a suit for preemption, all the legal heirs are necessary parties. The learned court below did not consider this aspect of the matter and dismissed the application in a mechanical manner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Laxmi Narayan v. Poonam Chand [(1998) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1186]. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that Order 1, Rule 13 CPC provides for taking objection in regard to non-joinder or mis-joinder of the parties to the suit, which are are to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and at least before settlement of issues, unless the ground of objection has subsequently arisen. In the present case, the pleadings are complete and issues have been framed and the matter has been fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs. It was further submitted that the petitioner-defendant was having knowledge regarding the parties to the suit and has now, at such a belated stage, raised this objection and thus, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner as the petitioner-defendant is using delaying tactics, which is not permissible in the eye of law. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs further submitted that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis of the suit and enjoys free hand in impleading the parties as per his will and choice. It is submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit for preemption and not for partition and therefore, have rightly impleaded the parties against whom relief has been sought. Thus, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed the suit for preemption and not for partition and therefore, have rightly impleaded the parties against whom relief has been sought. Thus, the learned court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The respondents-plaintiffs, in their plaint, had specifically mentioned that the property in dispute was never partitioned between the five sons (since deceased) of late Shri Chhoga Lal by way of any legal document. However, now their legal heirs are enjoying their own shares peacefully. It is surprising that the petitioner-defendant, in para No.2 of his written statement, has specifically stated that the property in dispute has duly been partitioned/divided between the five sons (since deceased) of late Shri Chhoga Lal. The written statement was filed on 30.03.2013. 12. Thereafter, on 17.08.2017, the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in written statement by adding new para No.9, which is reproduced hereunder:- ^^;g fd oknhx.k us Nksxk yky th ds tekus dh tk;nkn gksuk rFkk muds ikap iq= ekaxh yky] jru yky] I;kjpan] :ipan o ca'khyky gksuk nkos esa dFku fd;k gSA rFkk Nksxkyky th dk o muds iq=ksa dk nsgkUr gksuk ,oa fookfnr tk;nkn dk Nksxk yky th ds ikapks iq=ksa esa dHkh Hkh fof/kor cVaokMk ugha gksuk fy[kk gSA ,slh fLfFkr esa Nksxk yky th ds ikapksa iq=ksa ds okjhlku nkos esa vko';d i{kdkj gSA tks bl izdkj ls fd LoxhZ; I;kjpan mQZ I;kjey dk iq= gLrhey ,oa LoxhZ; clUrh yky th ds okjhlku ekudaoj] eerk] deys'k] eukst] v'kksd ,oa jktdqaoj ckbZ rFkk LoxhZ; :ipanth ds okjhlku deyk] ckcqyky] foey] lqtuk] jsoUrh yky] iIiq] lksguh ckbZ ,oa LoxhZ; jru yky th ds okfjlku lksgu yky] 'kkUrhyky] ikjley] fj[kc] dsljhey] ftrsUnz mQZ yYyk] gseq] fiadh dkUrknsohA ;g lHkh LoxhZ; jruyky :ipan, clUrhyky mQZ ca'khyky ,oa LoxhZ; I;kjpan ds okjhlku iq= iq=h;ka o csok gS vkSj ;g lHkh nkos es vko';d i{kdkj gSA ftudks i{kdkj cuk;s fcuk nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA nkok fuLr gksus ;ksX; gSA^^ 13. From the material available on record, it is clear that after filing the suit, the petitioner-defendant submitted his written statement on 30.03.2013, and the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been filed on 17.08.2017 after more than four years after the written statement filed by him and that too on the premise that since the respondents-plaintiffs have submitted that the property in dispute has not been legally partitioned, therefore, the legal heirs of deceased sons of late Shri Chhoga Lal were necessary party to the suit and in absence of which, the suit for preemption is not maintainable. It cannot be ruled out that the petitioner-defendant was having full knowledge about the said position about the legal heirs. Even then, the aforesaid application has been filed at such a belated stage, when the suit is at the stage of evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs. Thus, it is clear that the same is nothing but delaying tactics on the part of the petitioner-defendant for prolonging the matter. 14. Moreso, the plaintiff is dominus litis of the suit and enjoys free right to implead party in the suit against whom the relief is to be sought. The prayers sought in the suit run as under:- ^^1- ;g fd oknhx.k ds i{k esa izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fookfnr dejksa ds fy;s ok i= ds pj.k la[;k 4 o 5 esa of.kZr dkj.kksa ls oknhx.k dk vxzdz; vf/kdkj lkfcr ekudj nkok fMdzh fd;k tkos rFkk fookfnr dejks dks c; ukek izfroknhx.k ls oknhx.k ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k tkdj dCtk fnyk;k tkos rFkk cbZ dh dher 2]70]000@& :i;s v{kjs nks yk[k lRrj gtkj :i;s izfroknhx.k dks fnyk;s tkosA oknhx.k dk okn vxzd; vf/kdkj fMdzh Qjek;k tkosA 2- ;g fd izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcan Qjek;k tkos dh os fookfnr dejksa dh nhokjksa esa dksbZ rksM QksM ugha djs u djkosa nksuks dejksa dh fLFkfr dks ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ks rFkk fookfnr tk;nkn fdlh vU; dks jftLVz`h VzkUlQj ugha djs o djkosaA 3- ;g fd ;fn nkSjkus okn fookfnr dejksa esa izfroknhx.k dksbZ rksM QksM dj ns rks okn is'k djus dh fLFkfr dks iqu% cgky dh tkosA^^ 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court also, in catena of decisions, has categorically held that the Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court also, in catena of decisions, has categorically held that the Dominus litis is the person to whom a suit belongs and is master of a suit and is having real interest in the decision of a case. The plaintiff being dominus litis cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. The plaintiff in a suit is required to identify the parties against whom he wants to implead as defendants and cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no grievance. From a bare perusal of the prayer clause in the suit, it is clear that the respondents-plaintiffs have not sought any relief against the legal heirs of sons (since deceased), namely, Pyarchand, Basanti Lal, Roopchand and Ratanlal of late Shri Chhoga Lal and thus, they are not necessary parties to the suit. 16. The learned court below, in the facts and circumstances of the case, has held that the application under consideration has been filed by the petitioner-defendant for seeking impleadment of the parties that too at the stage of evidence of the respondents-plaintiffs even knowing the fact that all the five sons of late Shri Chhoga Lal have expired, which fact has been mentioned by the respondents-plaintiffs in their suit and thus observed that the amendment sought regarding the facts, which were already in their knowledge, cannot be permitted. 17. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 19. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.