Plaintiff Cannot Oppose Impleadment of Proper Party Merely As 'Dominus Litis'

Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, in Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors. (2026), dismissed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that a proper party may be impleaded in a suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC despite the plaintiff's objection, and that the plaintiff's status as dominus litis does not override the court's discretion to implead such a party. 

What was the Background of Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitioner had filed a title suit seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property, eviction of the defendants, and permanent injunction. 
• During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC, seeking his impleadment as a defendant. 
• The respondent stated that he had taken a room situated over the suit property on monthly rent from one of the defendants, that a tenancy agreement had been executed, and that he was running a retail electric goods shop from the premises. 
• The Trial Court allowed the application and directed his impleadment, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
• The petitioner contended that the respondent was not a necessary party and that, being dominus litis, she had the option to choose who may be impleaded as a defendant, and further submitted that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between her and the respondent. 
• The respondent argued that he was in possession of the suit property and that his impleadment was required for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the Rule of Dominus Litis Yielding to Judicial Discretion: 
  The Court held that the general rule permitting a plaintiff, as dominus litis, to choose the persons against whom to litigate gives way to the discretion of the court under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC, to implead necessary or proper parties as the case may be. 
• On the Respondent's Status as a Proper Party: 
  The Court found no dispute that the respondent was in possession of a room in the suit premises and was running his shop there, and held that his presence would enable the Trial Court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, making him a proper party regardless of whether he was also a necessary party. 
• On the Exercise of Discretion Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC: 
  The Court held that the Trial Court's exercise of discretion in impleading the respondent did not appear arbitrary in any view of the matter. 
• On the Scope of Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227: 
  The Court reiterated that the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and is justified only where the court below has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without following the principles of natural justice. 
• On the Validity of the Trial Court's Reasons: 
  The Court found that the Trial Court had given valid reasons for exercising its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC, and held that this was not a case warranting invocation of the extraordinary powers under Article 227 to interfere with the impugned order. 
• The Court accordingly dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim order staying the suit. 

What is Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? 

Background & Purpose: 

• Order 1 Rule 10, CPC empowers the court to strike out or add parties to a suit at any stage of the proceedings, either on application by a party or on its own motion, where such addition is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved in the suit. 

Key Concepts: 

• Necessary Party: A party in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, and without whom the suit cannot proceed. 
• Proper Party: A party whose presence is not essential for a decision on the merits, but whose presence enables the court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute. 
• Dominus Litis: The principle that the plaintiff, as master of the suit, ordinarily has the right to choose the parties against whom relief is sought — a rule that remains subject to the court's discretionary power to implead necessary or proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2).