PUSHPENDRAKUMAR KESHRILALJI SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. RAJENDRA ONKARPRASAD GAUTAM AND ANOTHER
Impleadment of Parties: High Court Upholds Plaintiff's Dominus Litis, Denies Intervention in Demolition Notice Challenge.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:14882
Decision Date: 19-12-2025
List of Laws
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India, Article 227; Principle of Dominus Litis
- Facts: The respondent no. 1 filed a suit against respondent no. 2 seeking a declaration and permanent injunction regarding a demolition notice issued on 01.03.2023 concerning unauthorized construction. The petitioners, claiming ownership of the suit property based on a sale deed dated 14.10.2022, sought to be added as parties under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arguing their rights would be affected by any demolition order. The trial court rejected their application.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the trial court's order rejecting their application for impleadment.
- Issue: Whether the petitioners, claiming ownership of the suit property, are entitled to be impleaded as party defendants in a suit filed by the original plaintiff against the Municipal Corporation challenging a demolition notice, considering the plaintiff's status as dominus litis and the principle of necessary parties.
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners are not entitled to be impleaded as party defendants.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties unless they are necessary for the adjudication of the suit. The Court found that the controversy in the suit, concerning the validity of the demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation, could be effectively adjudicated in the absence of the petitioners. The Court distinguished the case from Aliji Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Others, where the Supreme Court held that a landlord has a direct and substantial interest in a suit challenging the demolition of a building. The Court relied on Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Others, which reiterated that a plaintiff cannot be forced to add a party unless that party is necessary for granting relief. The Court also noted that the petitioners could pursue their rights in a separate suit. The Court stated, "the intervenors claiming independent right with respect to the suit property are entitled to get their rights adjudicated in separate suit which is allegedly pending."
🔒 For Members Only