1 ( 2026:HHC:10179 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.340 of 2020 Date of Decision : 30.03.2026 Aruna Kalia ...Petitioner Versus Santosh Kumari & others. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma. Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Romesh Verma, Judge(oral) The present petition has arisen out of the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P., dated 16.03.2020, whereby the application .led by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C has been ordered to be dismissed. 2. The facts of the case are that the present respondent Santosh Kumari has .led a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction against defendants No. 1 and 2 namely Sanjeev Kumar and Ravinder 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:10179 ) Kumar. It has been averred in the plaint that the defendants have started digging pits for raising pillars for construction of a building on the land bearing khasra number 745, in such a manner that a part of the contemplated structure is being a6ected. It has been averred that though request was made to the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful ownership and possession of the plainti6 but they failed to accede to his request as made by the plainti6. Therefore, it has been prayed that decree for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plainti6 and against the defendants. 3. The defendants have .led the written statement, which has been placed on record as Ext.P2 and all the averments as made in the plaint have been denied. 4. The perusal of the case .le reveals that the suit was .led in the year 2008 and the written statement was .led by the defendants way back on 13.08.2009. 5. The present petitioner .led an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 C.P.C for her impleadment as one of the party defendants. It has been stated in the application that during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.2 Ravinder Kumar has sold his entire share to the present 3 ( 2026:HHC:10179 ) petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 19.08.2013 and now she is owner in possession of the suit land. 6. The instant application was duly contested by the present respondent. Vide order dated 16.03.2020, learned trial Court dismissed the application. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case .le carefully. 8. The case .le reveals that the suit was .led about 18 years ago in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dehra, District Kangra and this Court has been informed that the present application was .led when case was .xed for .nal arguments. The respondent/plainti6 is dominus litis and she is master of her own cause. The plainti6 cannot be compelled to array any person to the detriment of the rights of the plainti6. The plainti6 has to pursue her case in her own individual right and she cannot be compelled to join or implead any person against her wish. 9. As is rightly stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant/petitioner has failed to plead and prove that her impleadment is material and necessary for the adjudication of the present controversy in question. 4 ( 2026:HHC:10179 ) 10. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C have rightly been dealt by the learned trial Court. The application which has been .led by the present petitioner is highly belated and it seems that the same has been .led just to prolong the litigation. The conduct of the petitioner can also be gathered from the order which was passed by this Court on 02.09.2025. On the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded no instructions in the matter. Thereafter an application was preferred by the present petitioner for its restoration and the present petition was restored to its original number. In the opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has rightly passed the order and there is no error and in.rmity in the same. 11. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Romesh Verma), Judge 30.03.2026 (veena)