The scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, and the criteria for determining whether a person is a necessary or proper party to a suit.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, Acting C.J.

1. Petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party to the suit (T.S. No. 27 of 1997) pending before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Titilagarh, in terms of Order 1. Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") having been turned down by him, and the order of rejection having been upheld in revision by the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh, this writ petition has been filed.

2. Ram Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff, who was the father of opp. parties 1 to 11, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the suit land by ejecting the defendant Hanuman Prasad Agarwal from the suit house. Description of the suit house is given in the Schedule to the plaint. While the suit was being heard, an application was filed by the present petitioner, styled to be one under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code, with a prayer to implead him as defendant No. 2 in the suit. His stand was that his father Radheshyam Agarwal was a partner in a partnership form along with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal. Late Ram Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff had negotiated with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and Radheshyam Agarwal for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and had received a part of the consideration money. That being the position, the father of the petitioner and after his death the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. That, according to the petitioner, was sufficient to make him a necessary party to the suit. Plaintiff filed objection to the petition denying the averment to the effect that the petitioner's father was a partner and/or there was any agreement for sale as contended. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Learned Civil Judge observed that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. The conclusions were affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh in Civil Revision No. 13 of 1997.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a necessary party as his father was a partner in the partnership firm with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and after his death the interest in the partnership property and/or in any property where the partnership had interest continued with the petitioner.

4. Mr. A. K. Nanda, learned counsel for opp. parties 1 to 11, submitted that interestingly Hanuman Prasad Agarwal is not a party in the present writ petition. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the petitioner's father was a partner in any partnership, as claimed, that is of no consequence as the partnership came to an end after the death of the petitioner's father. Therefore, the petitioner was not a necessary party. According to him, the prayer has been rightly rejected, as the sole object for which the application was filed was to prolong the proceeding.

5. At this juncture, it is necessary to delineate the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code and the true purport of the provision. The object of Order 1, Rule 10 is not to change the scope and character of the suit by adding new parties or to enable them to litigate their own independent claim, but simply to help them to avoid litigation which might otherwise become necessary. There may arise cases where the Court feels that in spite of the opposition of the plaintiff, it is necessary to add a person as defendant since in the absence of that person it finds itself helpless and unable to effectively and completely settle the matter in controversy and that its failure to do so will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The balance has, therefore, to be struck by the Court in each case by marking a sound judicial approach and where it fails to do so, there is scope for interference. It is to be noted that the law is well settled that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. Therefore, no person should be impleaded as a party to the suit whom the plaintiff opp