In order for a person to be added as a party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C., two conditions must be satisfied: (i) there must be a right to some relief against the party not joined, and (ii) the presence of the absentee-party should be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

ORDER :- The plaintiffs are the petitioners. They filed Original Suit No. 24 of 1968 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Balasore, for partition of the disputed property consisting of 2.30 acres. The plaint allegation was that the disputed property belonged to late Narayan Sahu who died leaving behind a son (defendant No. 4) and two daughters (defendants 5 and 6). He is said to have acquired this land by a patta and about 11 years before the suit he entered into a contract with the plaintiff No. 1 for selling the northern half of the suit property. He took an advance of Rs. 200/-and delivered possession of the northern half but died before he could execute the sale deed. Plaintiff No. 1 (petitioner No. 1) built a house on the northern part of the suit plot after possession was delivered to him and was residing and carrying on his business there. The house was, however, washed away in the unprecedented floods of 1961 and the petitioner received compensation for the loss of the

house from Government. After the death of Narayan Sahu plaintiff No. 1 made repeated requests for execution of sale deed by defendants 4 to 6. Defendant No. 4 did not execute any sale deed. Defendants 5 and 6 however executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of their two-thirds share of the suit property from the northern side of the suit lands, on 30-12-67 on receipt of proper consideration. Thus, the plaintiffs acquired title and are in possession of two-thirds. Defendant No. 4 sold his one-third share to defendants 1 to 3 by a registered sale deed on 4-10-61. That sale is collusive, fraudulent and without consideration. Defendants 1 to 3 had notice of the prior contract executed by Narayan Sahu in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit alleging denial of notice of the previous contract. They claimed that the disputed land was Anabadi and belonged to them as a part of their ancestral estate and had fallen to their share in a partition of the estate. After vesting of the estate they came to know that the property has been leased out in favour of Narayan Sahu, though the property was in their possession and enjoyment. They stated that in good faith they purchased the suit land except for 0.02½ acre from defendant No. 4, and continued in possession. Plaintiffs' title and possession were denied.

3. Gouri Bewa is the aunt of Amulya Ch. Mohapatra and they are members of a joint family. They filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. for being impleaded as parties alleging that the late Upendra, father of Amulya, had acquired the suit property from the landlords by virtue of a patta and was in possession of the same. The petitioners were in possession in their own right after the death of Upendra and were paying rents in respect thereof.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application. Against that order the plaintiffs have filed this civil revision.

5. Mr. R.K. Mohapatra contends that the learned Subordinate Judge exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in allowing the prayer of third party interveners to be impleaded, on the only ground that multiplicity of suits will be avoided even though the title claimed by the third-party interveners is adverse to, and quite distinct from, the title claimed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that the effect of the order impleading them would be to compel the plaintiffs to proceed against a party in respect of a question of title foreign to that between the plaintiffs and the defendants against their wishes.

6. This contention requires careful examination. On either side, a large many authorities of different High Courts in India have been cited. It is not necessary to go through them as the identical question has been traversed in a series of decisions of this Court. In ILR (1963) Cut 841 : (AIR 1963 Orissa 186) (Narahari Mohanty v. Ghanashyam Bal) this Court observed as follows :

"Two conditions must, however, be