N. L. GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) A civil suit No. 159 of 1989 was filed by one Riaz Ahmad and Nuren Ahmad against Faffar and Nanhe before the Court of Sharki, Allahabad, for a relief of injunction restraining the defendants not to demolish, damage or illegally possess the land of plaintiffs abadi, shown by letters ka, kha, ga, gha, angha and cha of the site-plan. They may also not interfere with the plaintiffs possession over the land in question. The defendant respondents filed their written statements to the plaint before the Court. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner submitted an application under O. 1 R. 3 for impleading as defendant No. 4 in the plaint. The application for impleadment was opposed by the respondents. The petitioner submitted that he is a necessary party, and his rights and interests in the property in question is likely to be affected unless tie is impleaded in the suit as a party. ( 3 ) THE application for impleadment was rejected by the learned Civil Judge on the ground that the plaintiff of the suit had filed the suit for injunction against the persons shown as defendants against whom he has pleaded the cause of action and seeks the reliefs. The application for impleadment filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that neither he is a necessary party nor there was any relief claimed against him. Thus, the application was rejected. ( 4 ) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the said order of refusal for impleadment filed a civil revision No. 35 of 1992 before the District Judge, Allahabad, who too by order dt. 29/01/1989, dismissed the civil revision summarily. ( 5 ) THE petitioner, thus, approached before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and raised various pleas about certain compromises held in a panchayat. The submission is that the plaintiff of the suit and the defendant already on record are likely to collude and compromise in the suit filed and such compromise or collusive judgment and decree is likely to cause irreparable loss and prejudice to the petitioners interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1990 Delhi 13 Gurmauj Saran Balsuja v. Mrs. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited AIR 1990 Delhi 13 Gurmauj Saran Balsuja v. Mrs. Joyce C. Salim, to indicate that an order under O. 1 R. 10 C. P. C. to implead a person as defendant affects vital and valuable right of the plaintiff which amounts to a judgment. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court was pleased to observe that though an order under O. 1 R. 10 CPC is appealable before a Division Bench. The other point in the said decision of the Delhi High Court is that addition of a necessary party may be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and for effectual and complete adjudication between the parties. There is no such hard and fast rule for impleadment of a party as a defendant if such application is made with delay. It is always a discretion of the court before whom the application for impleadment is filed to decide and exercise the discretion according to law. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. and examined the case law cited. The case law cited is of no assistance for the decision of the present case. The law is settled on the point that the plaintiff is sole architect of his plaint. It is the plaintiff who has a right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks a relief. In the present case, there is no allegation or any cause of action against the petitioner who seeks to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. The mere apprehension of the petitioner that the plaintiff and defendants of the suit may collusively get their suit decided which would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner is misconceived. It is well settled that any decree or order passed by a Court would not affect a person who is not a party in the suit or the proceedings. It is made clear that if any collusive judgment or decree is obtained by the party to the suit, it shall have no legal effect on the rights of the present petitioner. It is not always necessary to implead a person in a suit. Only it is settled that impleadment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the suit. It is made clear that if any collusive judgment or decree is obtained by the party to the suit, it shall have no legal effect on the rights of the present petitioner. It is not always necessary to implead a person in a suit. Only it is settled that impleadment is necessary to avoid multiplicity of the suit. There must be such facts and circumstances to show that unless the person is impleaded in the suit or a proceeding, there is likelihood of further litigation in the same matter. The facts of the present case are altogether different. The petitioner after having failed in the civil revision has now come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. A relief which could have been given by the court below under Art. 226. The present writ petition is misconceived and calls for no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. .