The Court has the discretion to implead a person as a party to a suit under O. 1, R. 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, even if the plaintiff opposes such addition, if the Court finds that the person is a necessary party to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the suit.

( 1 ) BY the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, impugned order dt. 12th Apr. , 1988 passed by III Additional Distt. Judge Deoria under O. 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Civil P. C. , 1908 (for short the Code), allowing the revision and directing the plaintiff, the present petitioner to implead Mr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 as one of the defendants, is sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction against one Mainuddin Khan restraining him from interfering with the function of Sri Arvind Pandey as officiating Principal of the institution. Petitioner No. 3 was acting Head Master whereas Dr. Nazaruddin Ahmad petitioner No. 2 was alleged Manager of Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, and Ram Pravesh Prasad was Adhyaksh of Kisan Uchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti Banjaria Bazar. It is noticeable that Mainuddin the alleged head master has not been impleaded in the writ petition. As he was asserting himself to be headmaster on the basis of some forged order hence the suit has to be filed. Dr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 made an application under O. 1, R. 10 (2) of Code claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution hence he may be impleaded as a defendant. Petitioners filed objection to that application. The Trial Court rejected the application by order dt. 28-2-1987 (Annexure-4 to the petition ). Against that order a revision was filed by the respondent No. 5 which has been allowed by the impugned order, hence present petition has been filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that revisional Court has no jurisdiction to impleaded Dr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 as one of the defendants as the petitioners never wanted to implead him as defendant. It is the choice of the plaintiff to implead anybody as defendant and nobody can impose himself against the choice of the plaintiff to be impleaded as party to a suit. Reliance was placed on Sri Mandir Mahadev Prithvinath v. Swami Prakashanand, 1981 0 Alllj 567.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents urged that sub-r. 2 of R. 10 of O. 1 of the Code was quite comprehensive and it confers even discretion on the Court that the Court may at any stage of proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Dr. Mohd. Haneef, the respondent No. 5 alleged himself to be duly elected Manager. His impleadment was even accepted by plaintiff No. 3 Sri Arvind Pandey that Dr. Mohd. Haneef was Manager and he may be made a party but aforesaid Arvind Pandey has not been made party to the petition as such Dr. Mohd, Haneef was necessary party to the suit in question.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties the point for determination is about the scope of O. 1, R. 10 (2) of the Code.

( 6 ) THE scope of O. 1, R. 10 of the Code has been pointed out in a number of decisions of Supreme Court. In Bal Niketan Nursery School v. Kesari Prasad, AIR 1987 SC 1970 : (1987 All LJ 1408), the matter was taken to the Supreme Court from this Court and the view of this Court was not approved. In para 13 at page 1975 it was observed by their Lordships of Supreme Court as follows :"the scope and effect of O. 1, R. 10 has been considered in numerous cases and there is a plethora of decisions laying down the ratio that if the Court is satisfied that a bona fide mistake has occurred in the filing of the suit in the name of the wrong person then the Court should set right matters in exercise of its powers under O. 1, R. 10 an