The court's discretion to add parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code is circumscribed by limitations and the court can only add a party when it is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all points involved in the suit.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an order dated 2-8-1991, passed in Civil Revision No. 15 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are that one Janardan Prasad plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Fatehpur against the defendant-petitioner and defendant respondent Nos. 3 to 5, seeking declaration that he was the owner of the house denoted as as in the map attached to the plaint and for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the petitioner defendant in favour of defendant respondent No. 3 in respect of a portion of that house. The case set up on the plaint was that the plaintiff and defendant respondent Nos. 2 and 4 namely, Niranjan and Hira Lal respectively, are real brothers and sons of one Narbada Prasad since deceased. Narbada Prasad and Sardar were the sons of one Jodha, a common ancestor who owned two houses shown with letters Aa and Ba in the plaint. Sardar died issueless. Narbada Prasad separated from his father during his life-time and was residing in house Ba along with Niranjan and Hiralal defendant Nos. 3 and 4. However, the plaintiff continued to reside in house Aa. After the death of Narbada Prasad as family settlement house aa was given exclusively to the plaintiff and house ba was given to his other two brothers defendant Nos. 3 and 4. It may be observed that these defendants were arrayed only as pro forma defendants who in their written statement have admitted the case of the plaintiff. However, the suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant and defendant-respondent No. 3. The defendant-petitioner denied the correctness of the pedigree given in the plaint and set up his own pedigree. He claimed that one Laxman had four sons, 2 of them were Jodha and Balloo. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are the descendants of Jodha while the defendant-petitioner, Sukhdeo, Laxmi and Niranjan Lal who are brothers are the descendants of Balloo. According to the case of the defendant-petitioners the house in question was owned by Laxman and consequently, all the heirs of Laxman were the necessary parties to the suit. The trial court, it seems framed an issue to that effect being issue No. 4 and decided the same in the affirmative. The trial court directed the plaintiff to amend his plaint, accordingly, within the specified period, Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff respondent preferred a revision which was allowed by the impugned order. Challenging the order passed by the Revisional Court, the present writ petition has been filed.

( 3 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner, in my opinion, the writ petition is devoid of all merits. The question that arises for consideration is whether the persons who were directed to be impleaded as defendants at the instance of the petitioner-defendant, were necessary parties for the decision of the suit and consequently, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.

( 4 ) IN Sri Mandir Mahadev Prithvi Nath v. Swami Prakashanand, 1981 All LJ 567, it has been observed by this Court:-". . . . . . . . NORMALLY the Court should not add a person as defendant when the plaintiff is opposed to such addition. The reason is that the plaintiff is the dominus litis. He is the best judge of his own interest and it should be left to him to choose his opponent from whom he wants relief. If he seeks relief against a particular person, it is not the look out of the Court to see whether the relief should be claimed against other persons, nor is it duty of the Court to investigate whether the necessary parties have been added or left out. "for the purposes of the present case, it is not necessary to go to the extent the rule has been laid down in the aforesaid case. Suffice it to say that the Court may upon an application or suo motu in a fit and proper case, implead a new party as defendant even against the plaintiffs consent under certain circumstances. Sub-rule (2), O. 1, R. 10 of the Civil P. C. envisages the circumstances when the Court