JUDGMENT The plaintiff appellants have filed a suit against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claiming reliefs of declarations that the possession of defendant No.1 Smt. Laxmibai (who is dead and L. Rs. are brought on record) in property described in para 8 (a) of the plaint and the map shown in read lines, is that of licensee of plaintiff No.1 and the plaintiffs were in actual possession of the room described in paragraph 8 (d) on or about 12.1.1964 and that the plaintiff No.1 be put in possession of portion described in para 8 (a) & (d) and for mesne profits. The suit was filed on 29th March, 1996. Under Order 23. Rule 3, CPC, as amended in the year 1976, when it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise in writing and signed by the parties the Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit. Thus, for recording a compromise and passing a decree on the application for compromise arrived at between the parties, it is necessary for the Court to be satisfied that the suit has been adjusted wholly or in part, and that the compromise is lawful. The application as it is filed, by the parties to compromise, a decree is sought for, recognising the partition of the house and declaring ownership on the respective portion; whereas the suit is for reliefs claimed as mentioned above. Thus, as the result of compromise between the parties the relief claimed by the plaintiffs or the questions which arc required to be adjudicated by the Court for deciding the suit are not being adjusted wholly or in part. That being the position the Court was justified in refusing the recording of the compromise. As regards the order passed by the trial Court on application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, I am of the opinion that order has to be set aside. That being the position the Court was justified in refusing the recording of the compromise. As regards the order passed by the trial Court on application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC, I am of the opinion that order has to be set aside. The application was moved for joining necessary party by the defendant/respondent No.3, on the ground that she is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the registered Tamliq Nama (Relinquishment Deed) dated 4.6.1935, executed in her favour by her father Ganga Prasad, son of Jhabbulal. She also claimed to be in possession of the suit property. Thus, the respondent No.3 on the strength of allegations made in application wants to agitate, question of her title to the suit property to be adjudicated; whereas the suit as it is filed by the plaintiff is only for declaration that the defendant No.1 is the licensee. There is no question raised or required to be adjudicated deciding the question of the title of respondent No.3 in a suit as it is filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a right to choose his cause of action and also parties against whom he wants to have the relief. The plaintiff is dominus litis, and normally, no party can be forced on him, to have the issues settled, in the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff. The intervener respondent No.3, if she wish, should file a separate suit fur establishment of her title to the suit property. The decree, which would be ultimately passed, if any, in favour of the plaintiff will not be binding on the respondent No.3. The contention raised in an application for joining parties, if permitted to be tried, will result in re-opening of the entire trial of the suit which is pending since 1966. Multiplicity of the suit cannot be a ground for permitting a party to join in a suit which will result in protracting the trial of the suit which is already pending for a long time. The plaintiff cannot be forced to get issues adjudicated by the Court which he dues not want in a suit filed by him. The plaintiff can only be forced to add party in his suit, if such is necessary for effectually and complete adjudication of the points in issue involved in the suit. The plaintiff cannot be forced to get issues adjudicated by the Court which he dues not want in a suit filed by him. The plaintiff can only be forced to add party in his suit, if such is necessary for effectually and complete adjudication of the points in issue involved in the suit. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has committed an error of directing joining of respondent No.3 as a party to the suit. Revision disposed of.