Judgement ORDER:- The present application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 5-3-1973 passed by the learned Munsiff by which he rejected the petitioners prayer to be impleaded as a party defendant in Title Suit No. 32 of 1969. 2. The petitioners case is as follows. In 1957 the State of Assam acquired the properties of Gauripur Raj Estate under the provisions of the Assam State Acquisition of Zamindaries Act, 1951 and the jote of 400 bighas 1 katha 15 dhurs of land, which was khas land of the Gauripur Raj Estate, vested in the State of Assam with effect from 14-4-1957. The petitioner along with some others became tenants under the State of Assam in respect of the areas in their occupation on payment of full rent for their respective holdings. One of the joint settlement holders namely Rajen Guha, having died the petitioner partitioned his share of 61 bighas 10 kathas 10 dhurs of land from the joint holding by a suit and coupled with his individual holding of 21 bighas 6 kathas 11 dhurs, the petitioner came to hold and possess 82 bighas 17 kathas 1 dhur of land under the State of Assam on payment of rent. Out of these lands, about 13 bighas are under direct possession of the petitioner while the rest are in possession through adhiars and tenants. By Notification No. RRZ. 3/59/360 dated 9-3-1959 the Government wrongly had shown acquisition of the old jote of 400 bighas 1 katha 15 dhurs of land as the jote of the heirs of Nekmamud and Saimamud, but that jote was non-existent at the time of issuing the notification dated 9-3-1959. In pursuance of that notification, a compensation case was started before the Compensation Officer at Dhubri. As the alleged jote was not in existence and as the said notification and the compensation case adversely affected the petitioners holding besides causing wrongful loss to the State, the petitioner filed an objection before the Deputy Commissioner, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68. This miscellaneous case was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and by his order dated 16-8-1968 he dropped the acquisition proceeding as well as the compensation case. Thereafter the Opposite Parties Nos. Case No. 40 of 1967-68. This miscellaneous case was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and by his order dated 16-8-1968 he dropped the acquisition proceeding as well as the compensation case. Thereafter the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 35 filed Title Suit No. 32 of 1969 in the Court of the Munsiff at Dhubri as plaintiffs against Opposite Parties Nos. 36 to 38 as defendants for a declaration, inter alia, that the proceedings in the said Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68 and the order dated 16-8-1968 passed therein were illegal and that the said Notification No. RRZ. 3/59/360 dated 9-3-1959 was valid. It has been stated in the plaint of Title Suit No. 32 of 1969 that the Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68 was started on the petition filed by one Kshitish Chandra Mitra (i.e., the petitioner) and others in November 1967, before the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, alleging that the lands in the said Jote were khas lands of the Gauripur Raj Estate and on acquisition of the State, these lands became khas lands of the State of Assam. Opposite Parties Nos. 36 to 38, who are the defendants in that Title Suit, filed a joint written statement wherein it has been specifically stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of Kshitish Chandra Mitra, that is, the petitioner, and others, as party defendants. In the written statement it has been further stated that the impugned old jote of Nekmamud and Saimamud had been made khas by the Gauripur Raj Estate in 1931 in an auction sale in execution of a decree for arrear rents and thereafter Kshitish Chandra Mitra and others were given fresh settlement as new tenants upon the lands and when the Gauripur Raj Estate was acquired on 14-4-1957, these lands became khas lands of the State Government. But as the said Notification No. RRZ 3/59/360 dated 9-3-1959 was wrongly issued in suppression of all these facts, both the acquisition proceedings and the compensation case were dropped. When the petitioner came to know of the institution of Title Suit No. 32 of 1969, he filed a petition before the learned Munsiff at Dhubri for impleading him as a party defendant in the suit. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer and hence this revision petition. 3. From the records it is quite clear that the order dated 16-8-1968, which was passed in Misc. The learned Munsiff rejected the prayer and hence this revision petition. 3. From the records it is quite clear that the order dated 16-8-1968, which was passed in Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68, has been sought to be declared as illegal and void in Title Suit No. 32 of 1969. This order dated 16-8-1968 came into existence in a proceeding initiated on the application of the present petitioner and others, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68. Since the main prayer in the suit is for declaration that this order dated 16-8-1968 passed in the Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68 is illegal and void, it cannot be said that the petitioner has no interest in the proceeding of Title Suit No. 32 of 1969. 4. Mr. D.C. Chakravarty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, has submitted that it is not absolutely necessary to implead the present petitioner as party defendant for a decision in the suit and if the petitioner has any right, he may establish the same in a separate suit. This submission is not sound. 5. The application for being impleaded as party defendant was filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This submission is not sound. 5. The application for being impleaded as party defendant was filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. While considering Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, ( AIR 1958 SC 886 ) as follows:- "As a result of these considerations, we have arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That the question of addition of parties under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contradistinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words of jurisdiction in the limited sense which it is used in Section 115 of the Code; (2) That in a suit relating to property, in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest, in the subject-matter of litigation; (3) Where the subject-matter of a litigation, is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party, it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. (4) The cases contemplated in the last proposition, have to be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Specific Relief Act; (5) In cases covered by those statutory provisions, the court is not bound to grant the declaration prayed for, on a mere admission of the claim by the defendant, if the court has reasons to insist upon a clear proof apart from the admission; (6) The result of a declaratory decree on the question of status, such as in controversy in the instant case, affects not only the parties actually before the Court, but generations to come, and in view of that consideration, the rule of present interest, as evolved by case law relating to disputes about property does not apply with full force; and (7) The rule laid down in Section 43 of the Specific Relief Act, is not exactly a rule of res judicata. It is narrower in one sense and wider in another." 6. In the instant case, the plaintiffs want a declaration that the impugned order dated 16-8-1968 is illegal and void. If such a declaration is made it will certainly affect the interest of the present petitioner at whose instance that order was passed in Misc. Case No. 40 of 1967-68. Applying the tests as laid down by the Supreme Court, it is found that the learned Munsiff has failed to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case in refusing the prayer of the petitioner for being impleaded as a party defendant in the instant suit. In order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the points at issue, it is found necessary that the petitioner, at whose instance the impugned order was passed in the said miscellaneous case, should be impleaded as a party defendant and the suit should be decided in his presence. 7. In the result, the impugned order of the learned Munsiff is set aside and the petitioners prayer for impleading him as a party defendant is allowed. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.