The main legal point established in the judgment is that controversies raised between the parties to the litigation must be gone into, and a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wish of the plaintiff.

Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Rakesh Narain Singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Rajesh Mohan appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2.

2. By the impugned order dated 02.11.2006, the learned Munsif, Patna City allowed the application filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for being added as party in title suit No.25 of 1974.

3. This application under Article 226 is heard treating the same as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for permanent injunction against the respondent no.1, Patna Municipal Corporation from dispossessing the plaintiff from the land and from stopping the plaintiff from planting the trees according to the lease.

5. The respondent nos.2 and 3 appeared in the year 2006 and filed the application for being added as party on the ground that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest and in fact, he has sold his share in favour of respondent no.3 and the interveners-respondents have got 8 Anna and 4 Anna share respectively for the income from the Municipal Corporation. The learned court below has allowed this application and added them as party.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he filed the simple suit for injunction. There is no dispute about the title between the plaintiff and the original defendant. The interveners filed the application denying the title of the plaintiff and are claiming to have purchased the share of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, it is not a suit for partition and, therefore, they are not necessary party.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in fact, the original lessee was one Mukund Lal who died leaving behind 8 sons. They all inherited the right of Mukund Lal and were planting the trees. On the death of Mukund Lal, the plaintiff sold his share in favour of the interveners and the interveners became the absolute owner of the income from the lease and, therefore, they are necessary party in the suit.

8. Perused the impugned order. It appears that the court below held that the plaintiff has admitted that the interveners are the heirs of Mukund Lal. Therefore, they are necessary party in the suit and allowed the application.

9. Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. provides that “the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” The terms “all the questions involved in the suit” has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal, (2005)6 SCC 733 and held “it is abundantly clear that the legislature clearly meant that only the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into, that is to say controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiffs or the defendants inter se or questions between the parties to the suit and a third party.”

10. In the present case at our hand, the only question involved in the suit for decision is as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for an injunction against the Municipal Corporation. Now, the interveners are introducing a new dispute between the plaintiff and themselves to the effect that they have purchased the share of the plaintiff and they are the absolute owner and plaintiff has got no interest in the income or the suit property. Therefore, so far th