1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court, whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, filed behalf of respondent No. 2, Talia Ram, has been allowed.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against Nagar Palika, Sangrur, to the effect that the defendant be restrained from demolishing and breaking the wall, mentioned in the notice dated 11th June, 1979, issued by the defendant. During the pendency of this suit, one Talia Ram filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, with the prayer that he be impleaded as a respondent in the suit. His case is that there is one lane shown by letters ABC in the site plan attached and there was a wall in front of this lane which wall was demolished in the year 1978, and any relief granted to the plaintiff in his absence, is likely to affect him adversely, and that he ought to be arrayed as a party so that Court may be able to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. This application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff and it was stated that he has got no interest in the suit property and he is not affected thereby. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to implead Talia Ram as defendant. It has been observed by the trial Court, that “Contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that applicant be not allowed to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff as plaintiff is dominus litis cannot be said to be tenable, under the circumstances of the case and in view at legal position discussed above. Feeling aggrieved against this order, the plaintiff petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court has wrongly placed reliance on a judgement at the Madras High Court reported as Krishnamachari v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal, AIR 1968 Mad 142. According to the learned counsel, that view has not been accepted by this Court in Kaka Singh v. Rohi Singh, 1977 Pun LJ 320. He also cited Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh, 1974 Cur LJ 716; Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, AIR 1969 Punj 57 and Padam Kumar Jain v. Digambar Jain Sabha, 1969 Cur LJ 1041, in his support. According to the learned counsel, no one could be impleaded as a party against the wishes of the plaintiff unless he is a necessary party for the proper adjudication of the suit.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, has relied upon a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Bara Hanuman Temple Durgain, Amritsar v. Gurbux Lal Malhotra, (1978) 80 Pun LR 187, wherein it has been held that as a rule, the Court should not add any person as a defendent in a suit against the wishes of the plaintiff but the word “may” in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code, gives a discretion to the Court and where it finds that the addition of a new defendant is absolutely necessary to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, it will add a person as defendant even without the consent of the plaintiff. He also referred to Amiar v. Gram Panchayat, Barota, 1978 Pun LJ 369, and contended that if the dispute relates to a street, then the persons affected thereby are necessary parties to a suit. The learned counsel also took a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the revision petition. According to the learned counsel, in view of the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC (after its amendment) the petitioner is further required to show that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, it would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against when it was made, and only then the High Court will interfere under Section 115 of the CPC and not otherwise. In support of this contention, he relied upon Surinder Kumar v. Raj Kumar Sehgal, (1978) 80 Pun LR 472 and Murlidhar Shiv Dayal v. Hrishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar, AIR 1978 Raj 48.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition of course, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, confer wide discretion on the trial Court. If the trial Court exercises discretion in favour of the applicant who wishes to be impleaded as a party, High Court in revision will not ordinarily interfere unless impleading of the party results in manifest failure of justice even if it may be held that the trial Court acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that how the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to him. Even if the order is wrong, the same cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC.
6. In this view of the matter, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial court on 22nd February, 1980.
7. Petition dismissed.