J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is filed against the order passed below ex. 200 in regular civil suit No. 387 of 1988 by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Amreli rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short ). The petitioner is the original applicant which had preferred an application under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code for being impleaded as co-defendant in the above suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The suit filed by the plaintiff is for a declaration that original defendant No. 2 Mamlatdar at Kodinar is not entitled to take possession of the land pursuant to the notice dated 31. 8. 1988, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession of the land pursuant to the said notice. ( 2 ) THE original plaintiff had earlier preferred Regular civil suit No. 399 of 1986 against the State of Gujarat and Mamlatdar, Kodinar and also P. S. I. Kodinar and the present petitioner inter- alia contended that it is in possession of the agricultural land and the defendants have no right, title and interest in the said land bearing survey No. 305 admeasuring 8 Bighas. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, he has become owner by adverse possession and that the notice dated 17. 7. 1986 issued against him alleging that the aforesaid land has been encroached upon by him is illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the suit property. The plaintiff also applied for interlocutory injunction alongwith the plaint. The trial court had not granted the interlocutory injunction. The order of the trial Court was passed on 9. 5. 1988. A similar suit was also filed by Babubhai Rambhai Gadhe in respect of another property being part of S. No. 305 of village Vadnagar being Regular Civil Suit No. 379 of 1986 on the similar grounds. ( 4 ) THE trial court by passing an order dated 12. 5. 1988 partly granted interlocutory injunction in respect of the land admeasuring 2 acres, 20 gunthas of S. No. 306 (part of vadnagar sim ). The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order preferred Civil Misc. ( 4 ) THE trial court by passing an order dated 12. 5. 1988 partly granted interlocutory injunction in respect of the land admeasuring 2 acres, 20 gunthas of S. No. 306 (part of vadnagar sim ). The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the said order preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1988 in the District Court at Amreli. One Babubhai Rambhai Gadhe being aggrieved by the judgment and order below ex. 5 in Regular civil suit No. 370 of 1936 preferred Civil Misc. appeal No. 43 of 1988 in the District Court. The learned assistant Judge by his common judgment and order dated 22. 7. 1988, was pleased to dismiss both the appeals. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the plaintiff preferred Civil revision application No. 780 of 1988 against the judgment and order in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 42 of 1988, which also came to be rejected by this court on 6. 8. 1988. The said Babubhai Rambhai Gadhe had also preferred Civil Revision application No. 781 of 1988 in this court which also came to be rejected on the same day. ( 6 ) RESPONDENT No. 1-original plaintiff filed Regular civil suit No. 387 of 1988 against the State of Gujarat and Mamlatdar, Kodinar on the allegation that the notice dated 31. 8. 1988, issued by defendant No. 2-Mamlatdar is not legal. The suit came to be filed on 23. 9. 1988. ( 7 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner made an application for being impleaded as defendant. The applicant inter-alia contended that he is a necessary party as the disputed land is granted by the Government to the company on lease-hold rights for quarry-purpose. Thus, claiming right of lessee in respect of the suit land, the applicant claimed to be impleaded as necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the code. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the parties and considering the facts and circumstances, the trial court was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner on 25. 4. 1989. ( 9 ) ORDINARILY, the plaintiff is the master of situation and he is dominus litis and no party can be impleaded against the wish and will of the plaintiff, Thus, the proposition of law is very clear and established. 4. 1989. ( 9 ) ORDINARILY, the plaintiff is the master of situation and he is dominus litis and no party can be impleaded against the wish and will of the plaintiff, Thus, the proposition of law is very clear and established. However, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) on its plain perusel also makes it clear that the expression may gives discretion in appropriate cases to the court to direct the plaintiff to implead a party against his wish and will if the Court finds that such party is a necessary party whose presence is required for effectual adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The applicant is claiming possession as a lessee in the disputed land and the suit is filed by respondent No. l original plaintiff against respondents Nos. 2 and 3-original defendants for a declaration and perpetual injunction. It cannot be said that the original applicant has no interest or is not a necessary party for the effectual decision in respect of the immovable property for which the suit is filed and relief is claimed. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Amreli below ex. 20 of 26. 4. 1989 in Regular civil suit No. 387 of 1988 is quashed and set aside and the application for joining original applicant as defendant is allowed. It is clarified that since the original applicant is desirous of being joined in the litigation of its own free voliution and against opposition of the plaintiff, the applicant will not be entitled to cost even if the plaintiff fails in his suit. There shall be no order as to costs. .