IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 270 of 2021 Decided on: 01.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ Ramesh Kumar ……….. petitioner Versus Sheela and others ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : M. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 4 & 5. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.08.2021 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.3, Shimla, whereby an application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC by the present respondents No. 1 to 3 has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. Admittedly in the case at hand, respondents No. 1 to 3 had filed an application for partition. The present petitioner in the aforesaid backdrop preferred a suit for declaration and injunction. In 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the suit so filed, only present respondents No. 4 & 5 were parties. Present respondents No. 1 to 3 were conspicuous by absence. In the suit filed, the following relief was claimed:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed and a decree for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from illegally partitioning the suit property comprised in Khewat/ Khatuni No. 81/117, (66/106), Khasra Nos. 171, 172, 174(Kitas 3), measuring 00-06-96 hectares as shown in the Jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 by exercising the jurisdiction vested in him under the law and without following proper procedure and without associating the plaintiff in the same and declaration to the effect that any orders passed behind the back of the plaintiff by the defendant No.2 with respect to the suit property affecting the rights of the plaintiff may be held to be illegal, null, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff”. 4. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is evident that the present petitioner (plaintiff) was staking a claim to the suit properties qua which an application for partition had been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, and was further seeking participation in the aforesaid proceedings. The trial Court while passing the impugned judgment was of the view that in the suit so preferred by the present petitioner (plaintiff), respondents No. 1 to 3 were necessary and proper parties for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute in the case at hand. The sole contention raised before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that he being dominus litis is entitled to arraying parties to a suit. 5. A bare perusal of Order 1 Rule 10(2) makes it amply clear that a Court upon an application of a party may add a party to a pending lis before it provided the Court is of the view that in order to 3 enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the suit, the same are required to be arrayed. Herein in the case at hand, the present petitioner (plaintiff) has filed a suit qua a pending partition proceedings initiated at the behest of present respondents No. 1 to 3 without impleading the said respondents at parties. Being a dominus litis does not mean that necessary & proper parties to a lis would be excluded. 6. In view of the aforesaid, I see no reason to differ with a view taken by the trial Court. Impugned order is upheld. Accordingly the present petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th September, 2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 01, 2025 tarun