JUDGMENT

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. — This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in OJC No.8900 of 1998 by which the application for impleadment filed by the respondent No.1, Najma Alim has been allowed reversing the order passed by the learned District Judge in Civil Revision No.75 of 1996 and confirming the order of the trial Court dated 1.11.1996.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are as follows :

The plaintiffs-appellants filed Suit No.54 of 1994 claiming themselves to be the owner of the suit property with a prayer for eviction of the tenant-sole defendant therefrom on various grounds. During the course of trial respondent No.1, Najma Alim, filed an application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called ‘CPC’) claiming herself to have acquired title by way of registered sale deed from the original owner of the said property and further alleging that the suit proceedings were collusive just to acquire title over the property. The said application was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 1.11.1996 directing addition of the said applicant as defendant No.2 in the suit. The said order was reversed by the learned District Judge in Civil Revision No.75 of 1996 observing that the suit for eviction being a lis between the landlord and the tenant, a third person could not be a necessary party. The said revisional order was challenged in a writ peti¬tion and the learned Single Judge has reversed the same and con¬firmed the order of the trial Court by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 2.11.2004. Hence this appeal.

3. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that if the application is allowed the nature of the suit will be changed. More so, a third party cannot be a neces¬sary party in the suit for eviction of a tenant.

4. On the other hand, Shri B. Routray, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that the suit itself is collusive as the plaintiffs-appellants want a declaration of tile in their favour and once such declaration is made it will cause prejudice to respondent No.1 who is the real owner as she has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed from its original owner. He further submitted that respondent No.1 is neither stranger nor an outsider and therefore, the application for impleadment has rightly been allowed. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the suit is limited to the extent of eviction of tenant from the suit premises. More so, in case the respondent-applicant is allowed to be impleaded a simple suit for eviction will be converted into a most complicated suit for title.

The issue involved herein is no mere res integra. This has been considered by the Courts time and again.

6. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar AIR 1963 SC 786, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court considered the issue as to who is a necessary party and held that a person who is directly affected or against whom relief is sought is a necessary party and in case the matter is decided without impleading him the judgment and order shall not be binding on him having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such a judgment or order cannot be effective one.

7. While considering the application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, the Court must keep in mind that plaintiff is the sole architect of his plaint and he has a right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks relief. Mere apprehension of any party that the plaintiff and defendant of the suit may collusively get their suit decided remains unfounded as whatever may be the judgment and order in a suit it cannot be binding on him as he was not a party in the suit. Such judgment or order shall have no legal effect so