ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:- “I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 04.03.2016 (Annex.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bikaner kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. may kindly be allowed in toto as prayed for. II. Consequence thereof, the petitioner/applicant may be impleaded as party in the civil suit pending before the learned Court below and trial Court be directed to proceed in the matter while taking written statement and evidence by the petitioner on record. III. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. IV. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No.2 alleging that the plaitniff had purchased a plot ad measuring 1400 sq. ft. at Kanta Kathuriya Colony, Bikaner through registered sale-deed dated 03.05.2000 from one Javed Ali. The patta of the disputed was in the name of father Javed Ali being Patta No.697 dated 28.11.1974, issued by Gram Panchayat Shivbari, Bikaner. The disputed plot is in the use and occupation of the plaintiff and it has further been alleged that permission for repairing and construction was granted by the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner on 01.02.2002 for the plot in dispute Khancha B-26 and thereafter, the construction was made over it. 3. It is alleged in the suit that one Harichand (present petitioner) tried to get the plot in question from the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner while alleging that he is a resident of Plot No.B-26 and he also filed a suit in the name of Harichand Vs. Municipal Corporation, Bikaner and Rehmat. The said suit was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2011. 4. It was also alleged in the plaint that upon the complaints filed by Harichand (petitioner) before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, the Corporation demanded documents relating to the property, which were accordingly shown to them and a notice dated 12.03.2004 was served upon her to which a reply dated 26.12.2015 was filed. 4. It was also alleged in the plaint that upon the complaints filed by Harichand (petitioner) before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, the Corporation demanded documents relating to the property, which were accordingly shown to them and a notice dated 12.03.2004 was served upon her to which a reply dated 26.12.2015 was filed. It has also been alleged that the Municipal Corporation is trying to demolish the lawful construction and repairs of the plaintiff on the basis of false complaints and are further trying to dispossess her from the plot in dispute. It was thus, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction be passed against the defendant for not demolishing her construction and further not to dispossessing her from the plot in dispute. 5. The respondent No.2-Municipal Corporation filed its written statement and denied almost all the averments made in the plaint. 6. When the petitioner came to know about filing of such suit, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading him as a party-defendant. In the said application, the petitioner narrated the facts and stated that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit while concealing material facts and the disputed khancha land is adjacent to plot No.B-26. It has further been stated that the disputed land, which has been said to be purchased from one Javed Ali through registered sale-deed and the pata of which is in the name of Shamsher, father of Javed Ali issued by the Gram Panchayat, Shivbari, Bikaner has actually never been issued by the Gram Panchayat, nor was there any record of issuance of the same. It was alleged that in such situation, the patta of the disputed land ought to have been deemed to be forged one. The petitioner alleged in the application that he had purchased plot No.B-26 from its original owner through registered sale-deed and house was constructed over the said plot in accordance with the Rules. It has been alleged that the disputed khancha land is part of Plot No.B-26 and, therefore, an application to purchase the same has been filed by him before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, which is pending consideration. 7. It has been alleged that the disputed khancha land is part of Plot No.B-26 and, therefore, an application to purchase the same has been filed by him before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, which is pending consideration. 7. It was also stated in the application that since the respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed a suit after concealing material facts from the learned Court below, therefore, the petitioner-applicant is a necessary party to the suit and further, if any order is passed in the suit in favour of the respondent No.1-plaintiff, the same will directly affect his rights. 8. The learned Court below, vide order dated 04.03.2016, dismissed the said application while holding that it is settled proposition of law that the plaintiff is a dominus litis of his own suit and who has every right to file suit against any person and to claim any relief. The learned Court below also held that the plaintiff has sought relief against the Municipal Corporation and no relief has been sought against the applicant and that that the plaintiff is entitled to file the present suit and the final adjudication of dispute will not affect the rights of the applicant as the applicant has failed to show as to what rights would be affected if he is not impleaded as party-defendant. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as he is in lawful possession of the plot No.B-26 and has purchased the same by way of a registered sale-deed and because the disputed khancha land is part of the plot No.B-26 for which he had already preferred an application to purchase the same before the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner and the same is pending adjudication, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit field by the respondent No.1-plaintiff. He further submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that if the relief claimed in the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff is adjudicated without hearing him, then the rights of the petitioner would be gravely affected and thus, doctrine of dominus litus is not applicable in the instant case. He further submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate that if the relief claimed in the suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff is adjudicated without hearing him, then the rights of the petitioner would be gravely affected and thus, doctrine of dominus litus is not applicable in the instant case. It is also submitted that the learned Court below has also failed to appreciate that the respondent No.1 has filed the present suit while narrating wrong facts and that the disputed khancha land is a part of Plot No.B-26 upon which the petitioner has constructed his house, therefore, the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. Reliance has been planced upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) through LRs & Ors. [2017 (Suppl.) CCC 756 (SC)] and by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Anit Mittal Vs. Ramesh Chand & Ors. [2017 (Suppl.) CCC 008 (P&H)]. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- “6. The bare reading of Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code makes it clear that Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or the sole defendant occurs during the subsistence of the suit. If one of the defendants has expired prior to the filing of the suit, the legal representatives of such deceased defendant cannot be brought on record in the suit under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 and Sections 151 & 153 of the Code, which reads thus: Order 1 Rule 10 : Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended— Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copes of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. Section 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Section 153 CPC Description. The Court may at any time and on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit, amend any defect or error in any proceeding in a suit, and all necessary amendments shall be made of the purpose of determining the real question or issue raised by or depending on such proceeding.” 7. In the matter on hand, the sale was made in favour of defendant no. 7, and the validity of the sale deed was the subject matter of the suit. The purchaser of the property, i.e. defendant no.7, though dead at the time of filing the suit, was made one of the defendants erroneously. In the matter on hand, the sale was made in favour of defendant no. 7, and the validity of the sale deed was the subject matter of the suit. The purchaser of the property, i.e. defendant no.7, though dead at the time of filing the suit, was made one of the defendants erroneously. The persons who are now sought to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code are the legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 7. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the presence of the legal representatives of the deceased is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the suit. Their presence is necessary in the suit for the determination of the real matter in dispute. Therefore, they are needed to be brought on record, of course, subject to the law of limitation, as contended under Section 21 of the Limitation Act. 8. Merely because the earlier application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed on 09.09.2009 as not maintainable, it will not prohibit the plaintiff from filing another application, which is maintainable in law. There was no adjudication of the application to bring legal representatives on record on merits by virtue of the order dated 09.09.2009. On the other hand, the earlier application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable, inasmuch as defendant no. 7 had died prior to the filing of the suit and that Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code comes into the picture only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit. The only course open to the appellant in law was to file an application for impleadment to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant no. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, dated 09.09.2009, will not act as res-judicata. 9. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code. Hence, the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, dated 09.09.2009, will not act as res-judicata. 9. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code enables the Court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings, if the person whose presence in Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the Court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. If the Court is satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and also that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy to substitute a party in the suit, it may direct it to be done. When the Court finds that in the absence of the persons sought to be impleaded as a party to the suit, the controversy raised in the suit cannot be effectively and completely settled, the Court would do justice by impleading such persons. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the Court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit, and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit.” The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Anit Mittal (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- “6. As per the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, the Court may add a person as a party to a suit whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. A person may be added as a party defendant though no relief may be claimed against him, provided his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit. It cannot be disputed that the suit property was mortgaged against the huge amount due in favour of respondent No.3-Bank. A person may be added as a party defendant though no relief may be claimed against him, provided his presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the suit. It cannot be disputed that the suit property was mortgaged against the huge amount due in favour of respondent No.3-Bank. So, respondent No.3-Bank has a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit and the findings recorded in the suit will certainly affect the rights of respondent no.3-Bank. Thus, the presence of respondent No.3 before the Court is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 7. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court impleading respondent No.3-Bank as a defendant in the suit.” 10. Learned counsel Shri M.S. Purohit, representing the respondent No.1, vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner had preferred a suit before the learned Court below and the same was withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2011. He further submits that the learned Court below granted permission to withdraw the suit, however, no liberty was granted to file suit afresh. He drew the attention of the Court towards the prayers made in the suit filed before the learned Court below, which is reproduced hereunder:- ^^1- ;g fd tfj;s fMxzh fpj fu"ks/kkKk izfroknh dks bl ckr ls ckt o eeuq Qjek;k tkos fd oksg tk;nkn eqrnkfo;k es cuh rkehj dks voS/k o vfrdze.k ekudj u rksMs o rqMokosa u dksbZ ,slk dksb Qsy ;k rdZQSy djsa] ftlls fd tk;nkn eqrnkfo;k esa cuh rkehj VwVrh gks vFkok mlds VwVus dk ,greky gksA 2- ;g fd tfj;s fMxzh fpj fu"ks/kkKk izfroknh dks bl ckr ls cky o eeuw Qjek;k tkos fd oksg tk;nkn eqrnkfo;k ij oknhuh ds dCts dks voS/k o vfrdze.k ekudj oknhuh dks mlls csn[ky u djsa] u csn[ky djus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh djs] u ,slk Qsy ;k rdZQSy djs] ftlls fd oknhuh tk;nkn eqrnkfo;k ls csn[ky gksrh gks rks csn[ky gksus dk ,greky gksA 3- ;g fd [kpkZ eqdnek fnyk;k tkosA 4- ;g gS fd vU; nknjlh o djhus balkQ gks eqQhns eqn~nbZ gks cgd eqn~nbZ f[kykQ eqn~nkbZyk vrk QjekbZ tkosA^^ 11. He submits that a bare perusal of the prayer reveals that the respondent No.1 has not claimed any relief against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner is not a necessary party to the lis and the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. He submits that the plot No.B-26 is not a khancha land (strip land), ad measuring 1400 sq. ft. The plot in dispute was purchased from one Shri Shamsher and she took permission from the Municipal Corporation, Bikaner for raising construction on the said plot. He submits that the petitioner, with ill will and in order to grab the land in question, has been filing various complaints against the respondent No.1 and thus, he is not a necessary party to the suit. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 places reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Apex Court dated 16.09.2022, passed in Civil Appeal No.6370/2022 [Sudhamayee Pattnaik & Ors. Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo & Ors.]. The relevant paragraphs relied upon are reproduced hereunder:- “5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the defendants in the suit filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and prayed to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants. The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per the Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs. 6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) by the High Court is concerned, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 6. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah (supra) by the High Court is concerned, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The said decision was not a case of an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the persons not party to the suit as defendants and that too at the instance of the defendants. 7. However, at the same time, considering the fact that defendants have also filed counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and permanent injunction and in case the counter-claim is allowed, as the plaintiff are opposing to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants, therefore it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counterclaim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers. Therefore, non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objections raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and with the aforesaid observations, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the trial Court allowing application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC are hereby quashed and set aside, however, with the observations as above.” 13. Learned counsel Shri S.S. Ladrecha, representing the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation, Bikaner, submits that as on today, neither the petitioner nor the respondent are in possession of the land in dispute and it is in the domain of the Municipal Corporation to decide the fate of the land in question, which is ad measuring 1400 sq. ft. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. Upon perusal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., it is seen that the petitioner has not placed any evidence or detail in regard to the plot in question being in his lawful possession before the learned Court below and further has not categorically mentioned in the pleadings as to how his rights would be adversely affected if he is not impleaded as party-defendant in the suit. 16. 16. This Court also finds that the respondent No.1-plaintiff has not sought any relief against the petitioner and the suit has been filed as the respondent No.1-plaintiff was served various notices by the respondent No.2 directing her to remove the encroachments on the plot in dispute and because the respondent No.1 was under apprehension that she may not only be dispossessed but the construction raised by her on the plot in dispute would also be demolished. Therefore, in such circumstances she has filed the suit claiming relief solely against the respondent No.2. 17. The object of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is that the person whose presence is necessary before the Court, is made a necessary party in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and settle all the questions involved in the suit. But, it is obligatory upon the person, who files an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to establish before the Court that he is a necessary party to the lis and his rights are involved in the subject matter in the suit filed and that his rights would be adversely affected if he is not impleaded as party in the lis. 18. As held by Hon’ble the Apex Court in catena of judgments that as per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and unless the court suo motu directs to join any person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be impleaded as defendant against the wish of the plaintiffs. 19. The petitioner has admittedly failed to establish before the learned Court below as to how his rights would be affected if he is not impleaded as party defendant to the suit moreover, when no relief has been sought against the petitioner. 20. This Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned order dated 04.03.2016, passed by the learned Court below. 21. The writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.