JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This petition challenges the order dated 4.8.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nilgiri in C.S. No.1 of 2016. By the said order, learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment.

2. Opposite party nos.1 and 2 as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration that the suit property is the exclusive property of the plaintiffs and permanent injunction impleading the State of Orissa-opposite party no.3 as sole defendant. Case of the plaintiffs is that due to wrong preparation of ROR and the map in the major settlement, the suit land has been recorded as public road. When the defendant threatened to demolish the boundary wall, they instituted the suit. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners, who are the villagers, filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment. It is stated that they are the permanent inhabitants of village Rajnagar and Sankhua. They came to know that the plaintiffs have instituted the suit against the defendant without complying the provisions under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC by suppressing the material facts. The suit land is a public road and, as such, they have direct interest over the same. The plaintiffs filed an objection to the same contending, inter alia, that most of the intervenors are not the villagers where the suit land is situated. They have no interest over the suit schedule land and, as such, they are not necessary parties to the suit. The intervenors are neither necessary parties nor proper parties to the suit. In the event the intervenors are added, the same will cause delay in disposal of the suit. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. The intervenors are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Held so, learned trial court rejected the application.

3. Heard Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party no.3.

4. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786, the apex Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.

5. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886, the apex Court held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property.

6. Really two points arise for consideration of this Court;

(I) Whether the intervenors are necessary or proper parties to the suit ?

(II) Whether the court can implead a party as defendant against the wish of the plaintiff ?

7. An identical question came up for consideration before this Court in Indrajit Dandasena and others v. Mangal Charan Dandasena and others, 57 (1984) CLT 31. Learned Single Judge, before whom the revision came up for hearing, has observed that there are cleavage of decisions of this Court on the point. The matter was referred to a larger Bench. This Court went in-depth into the matter and held that the maxim “dominus litis” means the plaintiff is the master of suit. It was further that the rule of dominus litis is subject to the powers of the Court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code inasmuch as the said rule authorises the Court to direct addition of further parties to the suit even suo motu where it appears that such impletion is just and the party who has not been joined in the litigation by the plaintiff is either a necessary or a proper party. The exercise o