ORDER A.N. Varma, J. - This is a plaintiffs application in revision directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif dated 2-8-77 allowing an application filed by two persons, namely, opposite party No. 1 Devi Gir and Ved Gir in a suit filed by the plaintiff-applicant against the opposite parties other than opposite party No. 1. 2. The relevant facts are these. The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for injunction restraining the opposite parties from interfering with the plaintiff-applicant's possession over the land in suit and from allotting the land, which is the subject-matter of the suit, or any part thereof to anyone else. The plaint allegations were that the land in question originally belonged to Ram Gir, who was the chela of one Govind Gir, that in the lifetime of Sri Ram Gir, the plaintiff and the father of defendant No. 3 came into possession over the land in suit and they have been continuing in possession ever since then, that the defendants were illegally interfering with the possession of the plaintiff and were threatening to allot the land in suit to others and hence the suit. During the pendency of the suit, an application (No. 49/C) was moved on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 and his brother Ved Gir for being impleaded on the ground that they were in possession over the land in suit, being chela of Ram Gir aforesaid, and that after the death of Ram Gir, his chela Karim Gir remained in possession over the disputed land and thereafter the two applicants were in possession over the land in suit. They alleged that they were directly concerned with the properties which are the subject-matter of suit and being in possession over the same, it was necessary in the interest, of justice that they be impleaded. In support, of their application, the two applicants, namely, Dev Gir and Ved Gir, also filed some documents establishing that Ram Gir was in possession over the disputed land, and that they were also connected with the property in question, as successors of Ram Gir It seems that these two applicants claimed the property as belonging to some Muth. 3. The trial court has allowed this application holding that the two applicants were necessary and proper parties. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-applicant has filed this Revision. 5. 3. The trial court has allowed this application holding that the two applicants were necessary and proper parties. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiff-applicant has filed this Revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has challenged the correctness of the order and has alleged that the two applicants who have been permitted to be impleaded as defendants were neither necessary, nor proper parties and their impleadment was improper, 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the view 'A that the order passed by the court below does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction, and that in any case on the facts of this case, is a just and proper order, with which I will not be justified in interfering in a revision under Section 115 of the Civil P. C. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that it is permissible for the plaintiff-applicant to choose which parties are to be impleaded in the suit. He urged that the question whether a person is a necessary or proper party has to be decided with reference to the nature of the suit, the averments made in the plaint, and the reliefs claimed therein. Learned counsel submitted that the two applicants were not necessary parties at all as no relief was claimed in the suit against these persons. Learned counsel also submitted that they were not even proper parties in view of the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1963 All 549 (FB) and AIR 1969 Punj and Har 57 (para 5). These cases have laid down the tests which should be applied for determining the question whether a person sought to be implead ed is a necessary or proper party. It has been held that if no reliefs are claimed against the persons sought to be impleaded they would not be necessary parties. 8. As regards the question as to who are proper parties, it has been held in these cases that if the decision of the case, in some way affects a person, he would be a proper party. There can be no doubt about the proposition laid down in these two cases. The question is one of the application of these propositions to the facts of the present case. There can be no doubt about the proposition laid down in these two cases. The question is one of the application of these propositions to the facts of the present case. Moreover the question whether a, party should be impleaded or not, has also to be decided with reference to the provisions of O. I, R. 10, sub-rule (2), C.P.C. which gives power to the court to add parties, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In my view, the powers given under sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of O. I, C.P.C. are wide enough to enable the court to implead persons as defendants in a suit, who may not be. in the strict sense, necessary parties, but whose presence may be regarded by the court as necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating upon and settling all questions involved in the suit 9. The plaintiff-applicant himself came to the court with the assertion that Ram Gir was in possession over the property. The opposite party No. 1 Dev Gir is claiming to be not only successor-in-office of Ram Gir but he is claiming to be in possession of the land in dispute. In support of his claim, he has filed some documents which the court below has considered as having some relevance to the question whether these two persons (opposite party No. 1 and brother?) should be impleaded as defendants to the suit or not. Moreover, the relief which the plaintiff-applicant is claiming in the suit is that the defendants be restrained from allotting the land in dispute to anyone. The relief is therefore, likely to affect the applicant also. The court is going to adjudicate on the rights and title to the land in question, and when the proposed defendants are claiming to be in possession, as successor-in-office of Ram Gir, who was admittedly originally in possession over the land in dispute any adjudication with regard to the land in suit is bound to affect the rights and interests of the two applicants in the land in dispute, if not directly at least indirectly. In my view therefore, the court below, cannot be said to be wrong in taking the view that the presence of these two persons is necessary for the proper disposal of the controversy involved in the suit. The order passed lay the court below is clearly covered by the provisions of sub-rule (2) of R. 10 of O. I, C.P.C. The court below has not committed any error of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment of those two persons on the facts and the circumstances of the present case, and on the averments made in the plaint. I am not satisfied that the court below has exercised its discretion arbitrarily or non-judicially. Moreover, I do not consider this to be a fit case where this Court should interfere under Section 115 C.P.C. The order under challenge will certainly avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and it would enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions relating to the land in dispute. 10. In the result, the Revision fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order is hereby vacated.