1. Since the questions involved in these matter are arising out of similar factual foundation and legal questions, on the joint request of parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

Facts are taken from W.P.No.5911/2009.

2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure P-4). By this order, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 CPC (Annexure P-2) is rejected by the Court below.

3. The respondent No.2/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. In this suit, it is claimed that the respondent/plaintiff became owner and in possession of the suit property because of the Will executed in his favour by late Raghunath Das. During the pendency of said civil suit filed by respondent No.2, present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC. The petitioner stated therein that he is real son/representative of Shri Raghunath Das. In a separate civil suit he has already challenged the Will which is claimed to be in his favour by respondent No.2. It is contended that the petitioner being the legal representative of said Shri Raghunath Das, is entitled to enjoy the property and, therefore, he be included as defendant No. 2.

4. The prayer was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply (Annexure P-3). The Court below rejected the said application by the impugned order.

5. Shri Dudawat criticized the said order and submits that the petitioner is a necessary party and Court below has erred in rejecting the said application.

6. Per contra, Shri D.D.Bansal and Shri Abhikesh Bhadoria submit that the order of Court below is in accordance with law and no interference is warranted in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is further contended that in the civil suit filed by the present petitioner, the relief claimed is not regarding ownership and, therefore, the Court below has not committed any error in disallowing the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Court below in the impugned order has stated that the application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC can be allowed at any stage and if this application is allowed, it will avoid multiplicity of the litigation. However, it is rejected on the ground that the suit was filed long back and petitioner has not given any explanation for delay in filing the application Order 1 rule 10 (2) CPC which reads as under :-

“(2) Court may strike out or add parties.-- The Court may at any stage of the 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.”

9. A bare perusal of the provision shows that the Court is equipped with the power to permit addition of parties at any stage. This power can be exercised even suo-motu by the Court. In 1995 JLJ 178 = AIR 1994 MP 181 (Kamta Prasad and others v. Smt. Vidyawati and others), this Court opined as under :-

“12. In fact, Order 1, rule 10(2), CPC empowers the Court to implead any person as party suo motu, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. True, the plaintiff is dominus litis, but a Court has to see that it may not be that a collusive decree is obtained against the real owner or interested person without impleading him as a party and it may not become final affecting vitally the