Plaintiff entitled to file suit for recovery of possession if the cause of action is proved.

1. All these revisions are filed by defendant in the respective suits. Four suits were filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein for evicting the Defendant in the suit with arrears of rent.

2. It is alleged in the plaint that the property belonged to Arulmigu Bhavanarayanasami temple and the same was let out to defendants under rental arrangements. It is further stated that they are irregular in paying the rent. Notice was issued to defendants to settle the arrears and also to vacate the premises. The same was not complied with, which necessitated filing of the suits.

3. Revisions petitioners filed written statement denying the title of plaintiffs and alleged that some third parties are the real owners and they are paying rent to them.

4. After filing written statement, defendants filed an interim application before the court below to implead the third parties as additional parties to the suits. Those applications were dismissed by the court below which is challenged in this revision petitions.

5. Under O.1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, a person can be impleaded, who is found to be necessary or proper party. But, even while considering the application for impleadment objection of plaintiff also should be considered since plaintiff is dominus lite in the suit.

6. Mulla on Code of Civil Procedure (15th Edition), commenting on O.1, Rule 10 on the basis of decided cases, has extracted the following passage from Sampat Bai v. Madhu Singh Sampat Bai v. Madhu Singh Sampat Bai v. Madhu Singh , A.I.R. 1960 M.P. 84 which read thus:

“The test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as a defendant would be according to or against the wishes of the plaintiff or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising on the cause of action averred by the plaintiff. It is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his rights. It is not enough that the plaintiffs right, and rights which the person desiring to be made a defendant wishes to assert should be connected with the same subject-matter. The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the case. A person is legally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. That is the test which has been applied in Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd. Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd. Amon v. Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd. , (1956)1 All E.R. 273, in connection with R.S.C. O.16Rule 11, which is similar to O.1, Rule 10, C.P.C.” [Italics supplied]

7. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay , (1992)2 S.C.C. 524 their Lordships considered this question and interpreted the words, “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,” as occurring in O.1, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships went on and said that merely because plaintiff opposes joining of party, he being dominus liti may not be a relevant consideration if in fact third partys rights are likely to be affected by the decision of the case. After making a distinction between suits relating to property and suits of declaration as regards status of legal character, in para 14 of the judgment, their lordships held thus:

“14, It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant e