A party seeking to be joined as a proper party under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC must prima facie establish that such a party has interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and as such should be before the Court.

JUDGMENT :

A. Pasayat, A.C.J.

1. Order passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in Munsif Appeal No. 12 of 1993 on 15.2.1997 is under challenge in this application. By the said order two applications, one filed under Order 6, Rule 17 and the other under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') were disposed of. Case at hand relates to the order passed in respect of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by opp. party Nos. 3 to 6. It is to be noted that the Original Suit No. 719 of 1989-I was filed by petitioner as plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore for a declaration that the orders passed in O.L.R. Revision Case Nos. 77 of 1987 and 84 of 1987 by Member, Board of Revenue on 24.8.1989 were illegal, without jurisdiction, void and inoperative and the same were not binding on him. Further prayer was for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. Prayer was also made for restraining the defendants, i.e., the State of Orissa represented through the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta permanently from interfering with possession in respect of the suit land measuring Ac. 0.28 1/2 decimals. As the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.1.1993 and 23.1.1993 respectively, Munsif Appeal No. 12 of 1997 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Balasore. An application was filed by opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 purportedly under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC with a prayer to implead them as respondents in the appeal. Detailed objection was filed by petitioner stating that they were not either necessary or proper parties and the belated attempt to be impleaded was intended to linger the proceedings.

2. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeal with the following observations so far as the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC is concerned.

"The other petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by some strangers, of the village in question is considered. The Government of Orissa have been made party in the suit represented through Collector, Balasore and Tahasildar, Basta. The disputed property claimed to be belonging to the Government, the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta are most likely to guard the interest of the properties. They are competent authorities to contest the appeal. The villagers seeking to be impleaded as respondents in the appeal cannot afford to provide better safeguard than that of the respondents impleaded. Therefore, instead of making the matter cumbersome I filed no substantial reason for these persons to be impleaded as necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. However, the villagers now seeking the relief in this Court to be impleaded as parties are proper parties in absence of whom an effective decree can be drawn after adjudication of the dispute. They are not necessary parties that in their absence the decree, if passed, would become infructuous and a nullity. Since they have made their appearance in this appeal, they are impleaded as proper parties......"

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the reasoning indicated by the learned District Judge is absolutely confusing and is without any basis. Having observed that the defendants, i.e., the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta are most likely to safeguard the interest of State Government in the properties involved and the applicants were in no position to provide such safeguard, the further direction to implead opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 treating them as proper parties is absolutely erroneous.

4. At this juncture, it is necessary to delineate the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC and 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 claims, but simply to help them to avoid litigation which might otherwise become necessary. There may arise cases where the Court feels t