A person can be impleaded as a party to a suit only if he has a direct or tangible interest in the subject matter, and the presence of the absentee-party should be necessary to enable the Court to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

P. K. MOHANTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order allowimg an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure filed by opposite parties 4 to 16 for being impleaded as defendants in the suit.

( 2 ) THE petitioners as plaintiffs brought Title Suit. No. 7 of 1977 against opposite parties 1 to 3 for declaration of title to the suit land and for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with their possession. It was alleged that by the alluvial action of the river Paika there was accretion to the rayati holding of the plaintiffs to an extent of 17 acres and the plaintiffs are entitled to the accreted land as an increment to their tenure. Opposite parties 4 to 16 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as parties to the suit alleging that they had taken temporary lease of the suit land from the Tahasildar, Kujang and after expiry of the lease they have been continuing in possession of the land and have also constructed a house thereon. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs. They denied the allegation that the opposite parties 4 to 16 were continuing possession of the lands after expiry of the annual lease in their favour.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif came to hold that the petitioners and opposite parties 4 to 16 have been quarrelling over the possession of the suit lands since last few years; that it was just and proper to decide the suit in presence of opposite parties 4 to 16 so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that prima facie the opposite parties 4 to 16 are necessary parties to the suit. Upon such findings, he directed the petitioners to implead opposite parties 4 to 16 as defendants in the suit.

( 4 ) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that opposite parties 4 to 16 have no semblance of title or interest in respect of the suit lands and they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.

( 5 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1, Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows :-

"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 sub-rule is applicable to two types of cases:--

(i) where a person ought to have been joined as a plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined and (ii) where without his presence the question in the suit cannot be completely and effectually adjudicated upon.

( 6 ) THE sine qua non for any person being impleaded as a party to a suit is that he should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject matter. If the questions involved in the suit can be decided without the proposed party, the judicial discretion vested in the court to implead parties under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Proceedure should not be exercised. Before directing a party to be impleaded, the court must be satisfied about the genuineness of his interest in the litigation.

( 7 ) IN the case of Narahari v. Ghanashyam, ILR (1963) Cut 841: (AIR 1963 orissa 186), it was laid down that two tests must be satisfied before a third party can be impleaded under O, 1. Rule 10 (2) Code of Civil Procedure. It. was laid down as follows (at p. 187);-

"two conditions must, however, be satisfied before a party is considered to be a necessary party. They are : (i) there must be a right to some relief against the party not joined. This means that no decree can be passed without affecting the rights of the absentee-parties; and (ii) the presence of the absentee-party should be necessary in order to enable the Court to effec