-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:01 PM
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and that no one can be admitted as a defendant against the plaintiffs' wishes unless the court orders so suo motu.
The following purchasers' failure to be named as defendants on the plaintiffs' objection will be at their own responsibility, the bench of Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari said.
The plaintiff in this case filed a lawsuit in order to get a declaration, a permanent injunction, and possession of the property. The following purchasers were included as defendants after the defendants filed an application according to Order I Rule 10 with the Trial Court. The High Court dismissed the petition the plaintiffs brought to challenge this order.
The plaintiffs are the dominus litis, and no one can be implead as a defendant against the plaintiffs' will, the appellants-plaintiffs argued in their appeal. The defendants, on the other hand, argued that the Trial Court had ordered impleadment in order to prevent any duplication of procedures and to pass an effective decree because the suit property had been transferred in favour of the subsequent buyers while the suit was still pending.
The defendants' counterclaim seeking a declaration of their right, title, and interest in the subject property as well as a permanent injunction was also noticed by the court. despite accepting the appeal.
Sudhamayee Pattnaik
vs
Bibhu Prasad Sahoo
