2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are plaintiffs before the trial court who are prosecuting a suit for vacant possession of the suit land bearing Khasra No.60/5 Area 0.020 Hect. Situated at village Chhote Atarmuda, District Raigarh. In the suit, they are claiming vacant possession from the defendant No.1 who encroached the land of the plaintiffs. The petitioners got demarcated their land in which the possession of defendant No.1 was found and therefore they filed a suit for vacant possession. In the said demarcation report there is no involvement of proposed defendant disclosed. Had there been proposed defendant found in possession, their name should have been mentioned in the said demarcation report. In the civil suit only to frustrate the ultimate outcome of the decree, the defendant No.1 made frivolous pleading that he is not in possession of the suit land, but one Kripa Ram Nirala is in possession over there. The said Kripa Ram is in possession over the suit land since more than 15 years under an agreement executed by Bahadur Singh in the year, 2010. He would further submit that the application filed by the defendant No.1, Annexupre P/5, was allowed by the trial court whereas it is for the plaintiffs who are dominus litis of the suit to decide who are the necessary party and in the present case the plaintiffs after considering the demarcation report filed the suit for vacant possession against the defendant No.1 and the proposed defendant Kripa Ram Nirala is neither necessary nor proper party,
