20. In the instant case, since the existing plaintiffs were no longer interested to pursue the suit as they do not have any title over the suit premises, they could not have made the new purchasers as plaintiffs in the suit without their consent. No reason for impleading the new purchasers as plaintiffs was mentioned in the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, apart from mentioning that they were the new purchasers. Mere fact of purchasing a property, during the pendency of a litigation, is, in itself, not sufficient to implead such purchasers, unless there is a willingness to pursue the pending litigation by the new purchasers and to that effect an application is filed by them. It is for the new purchasers to decide whether to pursue the pending litigation or not and not for the original plaintiff who are abandoning the suit. The Trial Court appears to have not taken this aspect into consideration. Though, a plaintiff being a dominus litis may choose as against whom he may pursue his case, however, in a circumstance when he himself is not interested to pursue the litigation (as in the instant case),he cannot compel anybody without there being any indication on the part of the said person to pursue the litigation abandoned by the original plaintiff. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed by the Trial Court without taking into consideration the willingness of the newly impleaded plaintiffs to pursue the suit which was filed by their seller and which the seller herself is no longer
