IMPORTANT POINT
Though the plaintiff is dominus litis and he is to choose defendants. But as per Order I, Rule 10(2) of CPC, Court has power to direct for addition of a person, if such person is a necessary and proper party for an effectual and complete adjudication of suit.

R.N. Biswal. J.—The petitioners call in question the order dated 17.4.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khurda in Civil Revision No.6 of 2000 dismissing the revision and confirming the order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Khurda in T.S. No.113 of 1999.

2. Opposite Party No.2 as plaintiff filed T.S. No.113 of 1999 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Khurda for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit properties as described in Schedule A, B and C of the plaint, confirmation of possession of Schedule B and C properties and eviction of opposite party No.3 (Defendant No.1) from Schedule A property and recovery of Rs.17,500 from her along with damage

@ Rs.50 per day and for permanent injunction.

3. As per the case of opposite party No.2 he let out the house standing over A schedule property in favour of opposite party No.3 and one Snehalata Samantaray on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000. As they defaulted in making payment of rent opposite party No.2 issued notice for their eviction. On receipt of the notice, Snehalata Samantaray vacated the house, but opposite party No.3 continued to occupy it. So far as B schedule property is concerned, the case of opposite party No.2 is that it situates in front of Jugal Charan Girls’ Vidyapitha. After issue of eviction notice opposite party No.3 along with some others tried to amalgamate the said property with the school premises and gathered building materials for construction of boundary wall by encroaching upon it. As regards Schedule C property, it is the case of opposite party No.2 that he is the founder of the aforesaid school and donated land in its favour through a registered gift deed, but C schedule land was inadvertently included in the said gift deed, even though he did not actually intend to donate it. Possession of the said land was not delivered to the school. Taking advantage of inadvertent inclusion of C schedule property in the gift deed, opposite party No.3 tried to take forcibly possession of the same. Hence, opposite party No.2 filed the aforesaid suit. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners, all of whom reside under Balugaon NAC filed two separate petitions—one under Order I, Rule 8 and the other under Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C. before the trial court to permit them to represent the general public of Balugaon NAC and to add them as parties in the suit.

4. As per their case, the suit properties belongs to the school, which is a public institution, where girl students of Balugaon NAC are prosecuting their study and as such the general public of Balugaon NAC have direct interest on the subject matter of the suit. The trial Court rejected both the petitions holding that the petitioners therein were neither necessary nor proper parties and that the school being a Govt. School, the matter remained confined between opposite party No.2 and the Government including the school authorities vide order dated 20.4.2000, as stated earlier.

5. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No.6 of 2000 before learned Additional District Judge, Khurda, who dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the trial Court. Being aggrieved with the said orders the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the school situates in Balugaon and at present about 100 girl students of different locality under Balugaon NAC are prosecuting their study there. Some of the petitioners were ex-members of the Managing Committee of the school before it was handed over to the Government and the others are guardians of the students. So, they have direct interest on the subject matter of the suit. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions Damodar Mohapatra and another v. State of Orissa and others, 34 (1968) CLT 956; Gopal Krushna Badu Mohapatra and others v. Girish Chandra Nayak and others, 1999(1) OLR 582; Anil