JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 3 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Phulbani filed this application u/s 115 read with Section 151 of the CPC (for short 'the C.P.C.'), challenging the order dated 24-8-1988 of the trial Court rejecting his application under Order 1, Rule 10, Order 6, Rule 17, Order 8, Rule 6-A and Section 151 of the CPC to add the Collector; Phulbani and the Settlement Officer, Berhampur as Defendants in the suit and to amend the written statement converting it to a counter claim. 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed the aforementioned suit against opposite parties 2 and 3 with the prayers to declare his right title and possession over the suit land, to recover possession of the suit land from the Defendants after removing the cabins installed by them thereon. The gist of the Plaintiff's case, as stated in the plaint, was that the Plaintiff and his family members had settled in Phulbani since more than 40 years j they reclaimed the suit land and other adjoining land belonging to the Government which was lying fallow and constructed houses thereon leaving the suit land for an orchard. In an amicable partition between the Plaintiff and his brothers in 1977, the suit land and some other lands with houses standing thereon fell 'to the share of the Plaintiff and since then the Plaintiff possessed the land exclusively.' Defendant No. 1, Srinibas Sahu approached the Plaintiff with a request to permit him to install a wooden cabin on the suit land for a year or two and undertook to remove the cabin and vacate the land whenever required by the Plaintiff. Taking pity on the said Defendant, the Plaintiff permitted him to install a cabin on the suit land for a year or two. Subsequently the Defendant No. 1 illegally permitted his brother Sankar Sahu (Defendant No. 2) to install another cabin on the suit land. The Plaintiff asserted that he has been granted a patta in respect of the suit land and has been paying rent for the land. When the Plaintiff wanted to construct a house on his land in 1979, he asked Defendants 1 and 2 to remove the cabin and to vacate the suit land. The Plaintiff asserted that he has been granted a patta in respect of the suit land and has been paying rent for the land. When the Plaintiff wanted to construct a house on his land in 1979, he asked Defendants 1 and 2 to remove the cabin and to vacate the suit land. The Defendants did not pay heed to the said request and lastly on 20-12-1985 when the Plaintiff reiterated the requests made earlier, they threatened him with dire consequence. In these circumstances the Plaintiff filed the suit seeking the reliefs noticed earlier. 3. During pendency of the suit oh the application filed by the revision Petitioner to be impleaded as party, he was impleaded as Defendant No. 3 in the suit. In his written statement Defendant No. 3 denied the Plaintiff's claim of title and possession over the suit land. The said Defendant claimed to be the owner in exclusive possession of the suit land. It was his case that Defendants 1 and 2 had been inducted on the suit land with his permission and the Defendants 1 and 2 had put two cabins thereon with his permission. Since they Jailed to remove the said cabins despite requests he filed H.R.C. Case No. 1 of 1984 before the House Rent Controller for their eviction, wherein the appellate authority held that the case did not come within the purview of Orissa House Rent Control Act and the matter was pending before this Court in O.J.C. No. 467 of 1986 at the time of filing of the written statement. It was the further case of Defendant No. 3 that he filed a suit, T.S. No. 8 of 1970 for permanent injunction restraining the Executive Officer, Notified Area Council Phulbani from interfering with his possession over the suit land and the said suit was decreed. The Plaintiff's application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC to be impleaded as party in the said suit was rejected. It was the further case of the Defendant 'that the Sub-divisional Officer, Khandamals assigned the suit site in favour of his father and the land has been in possession of member of his, family for the last, 80 years. According to Defendant No. 3 the settlement record of rights recording the suit land in the name of the Plaintiff was erroneous and illegal. 4. According to Defendant No. 3 the settlement record of rights recording the suit land in the name of the Plaintiff was erroneous and illegal. 4. It appears from the records in the suit that the plaint was amended and the additional written statement was filed by the Defendants No. 3. When the suit reached the hearing stage, an application under Order 8, Rule 6A, read with Order 6, Rule 17 and Order 1, Rule 10 and Section 151 of the CPC was filed by Defendant No. 3 on 18-8-1988 seeking two fold reliefs to add the Collector, Phulbani and the Settlement Officer, Major Settlement Office, Berhampur as Defendants 4 and 5 in the suit and to amend the written statement to put forth certain claims in the shape of counter claim in the suit. The counter claim sought to be introduced was to declare that the Plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land; and to correct the entries in the record of rights by 'deleting the Plaintiff's name and by adding the name of Defendant No. 3 therein. It was expressly stated in the application that the conversion of the written statement to a counter claim was necessitated due to the judgment passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 467 of 1986 on 13-5-1988. The Defendant sought permission of the Court to pay Court fees on the counter claim. In the objection filed by the Plaintiff to the said application, it was contended, inter alia, that the counter claim of the Defendant No. 3 could not be entertained since it had not been filed when he filed his written statement as provided under Order 8, Rule 6-A, Code of Civil Procedure, that in case the proposed amendment was allowed it would bring about a change in the nature and character of the suit; that the Collector, Phulbani and the Settlement Officer, Berhampur were not necessary parties and the Plaintiff did not intend to implead them in his suit and if Defendant No. 3 so desired, he may file a separate suit for appropriate reliefs on the cause of action alleged in the petition filed by him. 5. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge on consideration of the matter rejected the application filed by Defendant No. 3, holding inter alia, that the Defendant could not compel the Plaintiff to implead the Collector and the Settlement Officer in the suit and that the counter claim could not be entertained since it had not been filed when the Defendant filed his written statement. 6. The above mentioned reasons given by the learned Subordinate Judge in the impugned order:are not sustainable. He failed to take note of the fact that the application of Defendant No. 3 was filed under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC which provision vests power in the Court, either upon or without the application of either party to strike out any party improperly joined in the suit and to add the name of any person who, in the opinion of the Court, 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. Hower vested under the Rule is discretionary and it is wide. Whether a person will be impleaded as a party in the suit or not does not depend merely on the wish of the Plaintiff. To be impleaded as a party under the Rule, it is not necessary that the person should be interested in all the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff or that his presence is necessary for adjudication of the Plaintiff's case only. The rule empowers the Court to implead a person even if his presence is necessary for considering the case of the Defendant or to adjudicate a dispute between the Defendant and the person proposed to be impleaded as a party. The doctrine of dominus litis relying on which is often contended that the Plaintiff is the sole authority to decide who will be impleaded as Defendant in 'the suit has been held to be subject to the power of the Court under the provisions of Order 1, Rule 10, CPC (see 57 (1984) C.L.T. 31, lndrajit Dandasena and Ors. v. Mangal Charan Dandasena and Ors.). v. Mangal Charan Dandasena and Ors.). Therefore the learned Subordinate Judge was not right in rejecting the prayer of Defendant No. 3 to implead the Collector and the Settlement Officer as party Defendants in the suit merely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not want to implead them. Considering the respective cases pleaded by the parties as discussed earlier there can be little scope for doubt that the presence of the Collector and the Settlement Officer was necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to settle all the dispute raised in the suit. I ]nay reiterate here that it is the admitted case of the parties that the suit land was a Government land. Both the parties claimed to have possessed the property with permission of concerned revenue authorities of the State and the settlement record of rights, is relied upon by the Plaintiff and it Is challenged by the Defendants. 7. Coming to the prayer of the Defendant No. 3 to amend the written statement to convert the same to a counter claim the learned Subordinate Judge, as noticed earlier, rejected the prayer solely on the ground that the counter claim could not be entertained after filing of the written statement by the Defendant. He took this view construing the provisions under Order 8, Rule 6A, CPC No doubt such a view was taken by this Court in the case of Kashi Biswanath Dev v. Paramananda Routrai and Ors. reported in AIR 1985 Orissa 260. But this point has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others wherein it has been held that Rule 6-A(1) does not, on the face of it, bar the filing of a counter claim by the Defendant after he had filed the written statement, what is laid down under Rule 6-A(1) is that a counter claim can be filed, provided the cause of action had accrued to the Defendant before the Defendant had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not. In view of the authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court the position is inescapable that the learned Subordinate Judge misread and misunderstood' the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A(1) in holding that as Defendant No. 3 had filed the counter claim after filing of the written statement, the counter claim was not maintainable. However this finding will not help the Defendant No. 3 very much as 1 shall presently discuss. As noticed earlier the Defendant No. 3 expressly stated in the application that the necessity for filing the counter claim arose on account of judgment passed by this Court in O.J.C. No. 469 of 1986 on 13-5-1988. The written statement by the said Defendant had been filed on 24-11-1986. This applying the provisions in Order 8, Rule 6-A as elucidated in the aforementioned Supreme Court decision, the cause of action for filing the counter claim had not accrued to the Defendant before he had delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence had expired. The result therefore is that this prayer of Defendant No. 3 is to be rejected, though for a reason different from that stated in the impugned order. It is however open to him to file a separate suit seeking the reliefs mentioned in the application in accordance with law if so advised. 8. On the ultimate analysis the Civil Revision succeeds in part, that part of the order rejecting the Petitioner's prayer to implead the Collector, Phulbani and the Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Berhampur as Defendants in the suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure, is set aside and the other part of the order rejecting the prayer to permit Defendant No. 3 to amend the written statement and convert the same to a counter claim is sustained. The learned Subordinate Judge will take steps to implead the Collector, Phulbani and the Settlement Officer, Major Settlement, Berhampur as Defendants and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. Parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding. Civil Revision allowed in part. Final Result : Allowed