restrained from handing over the possession of the schedule land in favour of any other person save and except the plaintiff or in any way cause loss and sufferings to the plaintiff. From the prayer made in the said injunction application i.e. Misc. Case No.297/2019, it would be seen that the temporary injunction has been sought for against the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. However only the Defendant No.1 was made a party in the said injunction application. It would also be seen that the relief which have been sought for is indirectly sought for against the Defendant No.7 in whose favour the plaintiff in Title Suit No.200/2019 i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein apprehend that the Defendant No.1/Respondent No.2 herein would transfer the land to the Defendant No.7. It is under such circumstances that the Defendant No.7 who is the petitioner herein filed an application seeking impleadment in Misc. Case No.297/2019 taking into account that indirectly the injunction has been prayed against the Defendant No.7 and the rights of the Defendant No.7 would be seriously affected if any order of injunction is passed in his absence. The said application seeking impleadment was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.54/2020. The Trial Court vide the order dated 26.04.2022 rejected the said application on the ground there has been no reliefs claimed against the Defendant No.7/petitioner herein and further as the plaintiff is the dominus litus, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to fight against any person against whom he does not claim any relief in a particular case.
