***

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. –

The petitioner, who was the applicant before the learned trial Court, has assailed the order dated 11.08.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hodal, whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as a party to the pending suit has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner claims himself to be a co-sharer/co-owner in possession of the suit property and that his rights may be adversely affected in the event the suit proceeds in his absence. It is accordingly contended that his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.

3. Having considered the submission, this Court finds no ground to interfere at this stage.

4. The suit instituted by the plaintiff is admittedly a simpliciter suit for permanent injunction against the existing defendants. The relief claimed is against the defendants, alleging interference with the plaintiff's possession. No relief has been claimed against the present petitioner. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly examined the petitioner's application in the light of the nature of the suit and the relief actually claimed therein.

5. The principles governing impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC are well settled. A necessary party is one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence is necessary for complete, effective and adequate adjudication of the matters in dispute. The plaintiff is ordinarily dominus litis and cannot be compelled to litigate against a person against whom no relief is sought, unless the requirements of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC are otherwise satisfied. Reliance may be placed on Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417.

6. In the present case, the petitioner's asserted independent claim of co-ownership or possession does not appear to be a matter, which is required to be adjudicated for determining whether the existing defendants have interfered, or threatened to interfere, with the plaintiff's alleged possession. His impleadment would rather introduce an independent controversy concerning title, co-ownership and possession between the plaintiff and the petitioner, thereby enlarging the scope of the simpliciter injunction suit. The learned trial Court has noticed this aspect in the impugned order.

7. The question of impleadment has to be determined with reference to the nature of the suit, the relief claimed and the questions which actually arise for adjudication in that suit. Mere assertion of an independent right in the suit property does not, by itself, confer a right to be impleaded.

8. It is also significant that, as noticed by the learned trial Court, the petitioner has already instituted an independent civil suit against the plaintiff and her family members for adjudication of his asserted rights. Thus, dismissal of the application for impleadment does not foreclose the petitioner's independent claim, which shall be adjudicated in the proceedings instituted by him in accordance with law.

9. This Court, in exercise of supervisory/revisional jurisdiction at the preliminary stage, is not required to substitute its view merely because another view may be possible. The impugned order is based upon a proper consideration of the relevant principles governing Order I Rule 10 CPC and does not suffer from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

10. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.

11. It is, however, clarified that nothing contained in the impugned order or in the present order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioner's alleged title, co-ownership or possession in respect of the suit property. The rights of the parties in the independent proceedings, as also the merits of the pending suit, shall be decided by the respective Courts strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any observation made herein.

Petition dismissed.

********