JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Applicant Arjun Grover has filed this application for impleading him as defendant on the ground that he, being co-sharer, is one of owners of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 218, 219, 220, 221, 223 and 225 situated in mauja Majhet, Tehsil and District Shimla, is necessary party to suit but he has not been arrayed by the plaintiff deliberately. 2. Defendant No. 2 Bimla Grover is wife of applicant Arjun Dev Grover. 3. Defendant No. 3 is Municipal Corporation of Shimla. 4. Plaintiff has filed the suit for possession of land measuring 0-1-10 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 547/365/1 (old), Khasra No. 218 (new) situated in village Majthai, Tehsil and District Shimla by demolishing the construction thereon raised by defendant No. 1 K.R. Verma. 5. Suit has also been filed for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering in construction being raised by plaintiff over the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 218 and 219 (new), 548/365/1 (old). 6. Prayer for any other relief, as deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, has also been made. 7. Suit was filed in July 2014. Written statements thereto were also filed. Defendant No. 2 wife of applicant has filed the written statement on 10th November, 2014 claiming therein that she, along with her husband, has easmentary right over the path existing on Khasra No. 218 with further plea that plaintiff has concealed true and material facts regarding factual status of Khasra Nos. 223 and 220 as Khasra No. 223 is subject matter of contractual rights of her husband who has been put in possession by one Rajender Singh in furtherance to part performance of said agreement. Various other pleas with respect to adjoining land have been taken in written statement filed by defendant No. 2 with specific plea that plaintiff and her husband Arjun Grover have raised construction on Khasra Nos. 222 and 223 which was never objected by any person and plaintiff is also bound by terms and conditions of agreement and act done by Rajender Singh from whom defendant No. 2 has derived the title when share was transferred and by that time, construction had already been completed on Khasra No. 223. 222 and 223 which was never objected by any person and plaintiff is also bound by terms and conditions of agreement and act done by Rajender Singh from whom defendant No. 2 has derived the title when share was transferred and by that time, construction had already been completed on Khasra No. 223. It has been claimed in written statement by defendant No. 2 that Khasra No. 218 is recorded as common passage which is only available passage to have ingress and egress to the building of defendant No. 2 which is being enjoyed for the last more than 25 years without obstruction, hindrance and interruption. 8. Main ground claimed for impleading the applicant as defendant is that plaintiff is claiming his right on the basis of revenue entry attested vide mutation No. 606, which, according to applicant, has been obtained by playing fraud with applicant on the basis of alleged partition proceedings wherein applicant was never associated and he had also not signed any partition agreement dated 1.9.2018, on the basis of which mutation No. 606 had been attested. 9. According to applicant, immediately after knowing about the attestation of mutation, applicant inquired the record in the office of Sub Registrar, Shimla (Rural) and obtained the certified copy of partition agreement and copy of mutation No. 606 dated 1.9.2018 and noticed that his signatures (applicant) had been forged whereupon he submitted a written complaint to Tehsildar Shimla on 23.07.2019 and he also submitted complaint to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. who forwarded the same to Deputy Commissioner, Shimla vide communication dated 3.9.2019. Further that applicant also reported the matter to the Director General Vigilance vide communication dated 23.7.2019 and on the basis of complaint of applicant, FIR No. 186 of 2019 dated 17.08.2019 has been registered in Police Station Boileuganj Shimla. It has been submitted that in case right claimed by plaintiff on the basis of Mutation No. 606 is given legal protection then valuable right of applicant and his wife defendant No. 2 along with Kamla Devi and K.R. Verma, (defendant No. 1), will be infringed as they shall be deprived from utilizing their property situated on Khasra Nos. 222, 223, 217 and 225. 10. 222, 223, 217 and 225. 10. Plaintiff has opposed the impleadment of applicant on the ground that applicant is neither necessary nor proper party for adjudication of matter with further submissions that applicant is husband of defendant No. 2, who was well aware of present litigation, and after lapse of five years, he has filed the application just for delaying the proceedings and for the nature of suit and prayer made therein, applicant has no role in adjudication of present matter and therefore, he is not required to be impleaded in the suit with further submissions that applicant has not been impleaded in the suit because plaintiff did not apprehend any interference of applicant in the construction. It has been denied that applicant is co-sharer or his wife is co-sharer in Khasra No. 218 or there is existence of path in Khasra No. 218 with further averments that earlier it was recorded as “Rasta Sharay Aam” and now it has been corrected and it has been shown in ownership and possession of plaintiff, and in partition, a portion of same has been agreed to be left as a passage and further that in case of infringement of right of applicant, he has separate remedy to challenge the partition if he is aggrieved by same. It has been stated that partition agreement has been duly signed by applicant in presence of witnesses. 11. The suit has been filed for possession of a piece of land after demolition of the construction raised by defendant K.R. Verma and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants including the wife of applicant from interfering in construction being raised by plaintiff on Khasra Nos. 218 and 219. No relief has been sought by plaintiff against the applicant. 12. According to applicant, Khasra No. 218 has been wrongly recorded in ownership and possession of plaintiff by attesting mutation No. 606 on the basis of partition deed which was never signed by applicant. In second prayer, though Bimla Grover wife of applicant is defendant No. 2 but in response to reply, it has been stated that plaintiff was not apprehending any interference by applicant in construction being raised by plaintiff and therefore, he was not made party. 13. In second prayer, though Bimla Grover wife of applicant is defendant No. 2 but in response to reply, it has been stated that plaintiff was not apprehending any interference by applicant in construction being raised by plaintiff and therefore, he was not made party. 13. In view of stand of plaintiff, applicant cannot thrust him as defendant in the suit filed by plaintiff wherein prohibitory injunction has been sought only against the defendants and in those defendants, defendant No. 2 is wife of applicant who has filed detailed written statement for protection of her rights as well as rights of her husband and that plaintiff is neither praying for demolition of any structure raised by applicant nor claiming any prohibitory injunction against him and further, wife of applicant is duly taking care of rights of her husband along with her rights and applicant, knowing about filing of suit since beginning, despite being husband of defendant No. 2, kept waiting for about five years for filing present application. Therefore, I do not consider his claim to be merit-worthy to implead him a defendant in present suit. 14. Grievance of applicant that partition deed was not signed by him and mutation No. 606 has been obtained by playing a fraud cannot be redressed in present proceedings preferred by plaintiff for possession of land for specific construction raised by defendant No. 1 K.R. Verma and seeking mandatory injunction against defendants including the wife of applicant. The remedy for redressal of such grievance lies somewhere else by initiating appropriate proceedings for adjudication of such issue. 15. Plaintiff has a dominus litis for impleading or non-impleading the another party as defendant and in case, there is non-joinder of necessary party, plaintiff has to suffer for that. Therefore, applicant cannot be thrusted as defendant in present suit more particularly when suit was filed in the year 2014 and issues were framed on 20th August, 2015 and I am of the opinion, for adjudication of any issue, for presence of defendant No. 2 Bimla Grover, wife of applicant, and every plea taken by her in written statement on the basis of which issues have been framed, applicant is not a necessary party for proper adjudication of lis in present suit. 16. Accordingly, application is dismissed.