JUDGMENT : Mridul Kumar Kalita, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. None has appeared for the respondents in spite of due service of notice on them, hence, this matter was heard ex-parte against the respondents. 3. This Civil Revision Petition (IO) has been preferred by the petitioner, namely, Dasarath Prasad, impugning the order dated 27.09.2023, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 28/2022, arising out of Title Suit No. 11/2010, by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, North Lakhimpur by which the prayer for impleadment of the new plaintiffs, namely, Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain in the aforesaid title suit was allowed. 4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant civil revision petition, in brief, are that the predecessor in interest of the present respondents, namely, Sayeda Rubia Begum along with her daughter, namely, Nazifa Sultana Hussain had jointly filed the Title Suit No. 11/2010 against the present petitioner for the relief of his eviction from the suit premises mainly on the ground of defaulter in payment of rents and of bona fide requirement. 5. It is pertinent to mention herein that the suit premises measure about 10 ft. X 59 ft. The present petitioner contested the said suit by filing his written statement. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, on 29.05.2011, major portion of the suit premises was gutted by fire and was burned down. Accordingly, the plaintiffs at that point of time, filed an application under Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC, on 01.06.2011, praying for allowing them to withdraw the suit, as the suit premises itself got burnt down due to the fire. However, the aforesaid application was not pressed by them. They submitted similar application subsequently also. It is contended by the petitioner that though the major portion of the suit property was damaged due to fire, however, there was a toilet in the suit premises, which was used as a godown and was not damaged and the present petitioner continued to remain in possession of the same. 6. After the fire incident, the petitioner as plaintiff had filed another suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 19/2011before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 against the said Sayeda Rubia Begum with a prayer for directing the defendant to repair/renovate the damaged suit premises. 6. After the fire incident, the petitioner as plaintiff had filed another suit which was registered as Title Suit No. 19/2011before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1 against the said Sayeda Rubia Begum with a prayer for directing the defendant to repair/renovate the damaged suit premises. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that though the tenanted premises were shown in the tenancy agreement as covering an area of 10 ft. X 59 ft., however, actually it was 10 ft. X 90 ft. In this regard, the petitioner approached the Trial Court for measurement of the entire tenanted premises by filing a petition. On the basis of the aforesaid petition, Misc. (J) Case No. 28/2018 was registered. However, the Trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for measurement of the suit premises. Against the rejection order, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision Petition (IO), which was registered as CRP(IO) No. 292/2010 and the High Court, by its order dated 18.09.2019 directed the measurement of the suit premises. 8. It is also contended that the original plaintiff No. 1, late Sayeda Rubia Begum had appointed her son, namely, Nazrul Hussain as her attorney holder, who used to take all steps in the suit filed by them. 9. On 25.05.2022, the respondent No. 1, who was also the attorney holder of the original plaintiff filed a petition before the Trial Court, inter alia, stating that the suit property has been sold on 26.04.2016 to two brothers, namely, Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain by a registered sale deed bearing No. 107/2016. It was contended that the said sale deed was executed, by one Muhiuddin Laskar, as the attorney of Sayeda Rubia Begum. 10. The respondent No. 1 in an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure prayed for adding the purchaser of the suit premises, namely, Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain and also prayed for striking out the names of the plaintiffs (all the legal heirs of late Sayeda Rubia Begum). The said petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 28/2022. The said petition was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 28/2022. Though, the present petitioner objected to the impleadment as plaintiff in this suit without any application from their side and striking out of the legal heirs of the original plaintiff, however, by the impugned order dated 27.09.2023, the Trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 and impleaded Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain as plaintiffs in the aforesaid title suit and also strike out the names of the respondents from the plaint by invoking the powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 11. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Trial Court had erred in allowing the petition filed by the present respondent No. 1 for impleading two strangers as plaintiffs merely on the basis of the submissions made by the respondent No. 1 to the effect that the newly impleaded plaintiffs have purchased the suit property. He submits that the sale deed in question on the basis of which the suit property is claimed to be sold to Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain was executed during the pendency of status quo order passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 15/2011in connection with Title Suit No. 19/2011. He submits that since the sale deed relied upon by respondent No. 1 appears to have been executed during the pendency of the aforesaid injunction order, same ought not to have been relied upon by the Trial Court to implead the new purchaser as plaintiffs in the Title Suit No. 11/2010. He submits that alienation of the suit premises during the subsistence of a status quo order without any leave for transferring the suit property from the Trial Court ought not to be regarded as a basis for allowing the impleadment petition. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling in the case of “ Surjit Singh and others etc. Vs. Harbans Singh and others etc. ” reported in “ AIR 1996 SC 135 ” 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the so-called purchaser of the suit property never approached the Trial Court for impleading themselves as plaintiff. Vs. Harbans Singh and others etc. ” reported in “ AIR 1996 SC 135 ” 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the so-called purchaser of the suit property never approached the Trial Court for impleading themselves as plaintiff. He submits that in absence of any application from the purchaser, they could not have been made party as it is for the assignee or transferee to come on record if they so chooses to defend the suit filed by the original plaintiff. He submits that in the instant case, the legal heirs of the original plaintiff have clearly stated that as they do not have the title over the suit property, after its alienation by original plaintiff, their names may be struck off. 13. The learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that though being a dominus litis in the suit, plaintiff can definitely choose as to against whom he or she decide to proceed. However, when the plaintiff himself is abandoning her suit, she cannot, without the consent of the stranger to suit, make them as new plaintiffs. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Government of Orissa Vs. M/S Ashok Transport Agency and Ors ” [Civil Appeal No. 3209/2002]. 14. He also submits that the original plaintiff, namely, Sayeda Rubia Begum, who was pursuing this suit, never disclosed the fact of alienation of the suit property, by executing the sale deed dated 26.04.2016, till her death on 1st of May, 2021. He also submits that the Trial Court also erred in not considering the fact that the respondent No. 1, Nazrul Hussain, who was the attorney holder of the original plaintiff and was taking all the steps in the said suit from the period 2016 to 2022 took the plea that the suit property has been sold in the year 2016 itself, that too during the pendency of the status quo order, same ought not to have been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the rulings cited by him in support of his contentions. 16. 15. I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the rulings cited by him in support of his contentions. 16. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Trial Court, by passing the impugned order, not only allowed the impleadment of two new plaintiffs but also allowed the striking out of names of the existing plaintiffs (present respondents). 17. Apparently, on perusal of the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) before the Trial Court, it appears that the aforesaid respondent showed no interest to pursue the Title Suit No. 11/2010and there was no application before the Trial Court from the new purchaser, i.e., Anowar Hussain and Monowar Hussain for impleading them as plaintiff in the suit. 18. Without going into the question of validity or otherwise of the sale deed executed during the existence of an order to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property, even if it is assumed that the said sale deed had conveyed the title to the new purchasers, this Court is of considered view that the impleadment of such purchasers as plaintiffs may be made only if such purchaser seek to be impleaded in the suit by filing an appropriate application. The existing plaintiffs, who are themselves abandoning the suit for whatsoever reason, may not compel an unwilling party to pursue the suit abandoned by the original plaintiffs. 19. The power of the Trial Court under Order 10 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a wide and extensive power to implead any party or to strike out any party at any stage of proceeding. However, the said power is to be exercised judiciously, only if such an impleadment or striking out, in the considered opinion of the Court, may be regarded necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 20. In the instant case, since the existing plaintiffs were no longer interested to pursue the suit as they do not have any title over the suit premises, they could not have made the new purchasers as plaintiffs in the suit without their consent. 20. In the instant case, since the existing plaintiffs were no longer interested to pursue the suit as they do not have any title over the suit premises, they could not have made the new purchasers as plaintiffs in the suit without their consent. No reason for impleading the new purchasers as plaintiffs was mentioned in the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, apart from mentioning that they were the new purchasers. Mere fact of purchasing a property, during the pendency of a litigation, is, in itself, not sufficient to implead such purchasers, unless there is a willingness to pursue the pending litigation by the new purchasers and to that effect an application is filed by them. It is for the new purchasers to decide whether to pursue the pending litigation or not and not for the original plaintiff who are abandoning the suit. The Trial Court appears to have not taken this aspect into consideration. Though, a plaintiff being a dominus litis may choose as against whom he may pursue his case, however, in a circumstance when he himself is not interested to pursue the litigation (as in the instant case),he cannot compel anybody without there being any indication on the part of the said person to pursue the litigation abandoned by the original plaintiff. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court without taking into consideration the willingness of the newly impleaded plaintiffs to pursue the suit which was filed by their seller and which the seller herself is no longer interested to pursue. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 21. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court impleading the purchaser of the suit property, without their consent is hereby set aside. 22. If the original plaintiffs are not inclined to pursue with the aforesaid title suit, they may take recourse to legally recognized procedures as contemplated in Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or any other legally recognized provision, if so advised. 23. This civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. 24. Send back the records which were requisitioned from the Trial Court to the Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.