JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. This civil revision by some of the defendants in the court below is directed against order dated 23.8.94 in Title Suit No. 94/87 of 1985/94 of the court of 1st Additional Munsif, Siwan, adding Shikhari Mahto, since dead and represented by his heirs, as intervenor-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code', in short). 2. The point for consideration is whether a defendant can object to addition of a party when the plaintiff does not oppose the prayer. 3. It would appear from the scheme envisaged in Order 1 of the Code that it is for the plaintiff to choose the defendants. The plaintiff is like captain of the ship who is to decide who would board the ship. Subject to such order as may be passed by the court, the choice of the defendant rests with him. Under Rule 10, if a person has been improperly joined, his name may be struck out, or if the presence of a person is either necessary or proper to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit he may be added at any stage of the proceedings. The defendant does not come in the picture in the matter of choice of fellow defendants. 4. In the present case intervenor Shikhari Mistri filed application for his addition as party defendant which was not opposed by the plaintiff. The defendant petitioners opposed the addition on the ground that the intervenor sought to lay claim over property mentioned in Schedule III of the plaint with respect to which the plaintiffs had not sought any relief. The addition of the intervenor, therefore, would enlarge 'the scope of the suit. The plea of the petitioners in this regard can be answered by merely observing that allowing intervention does not mean allowing inter se claim (on merit) also. Ordinarily, it is the plaintiff's claim which is to be determined in the suit. Where the defendant comes forward with any inter se claim in accordance with law, the same may also be adjudicated by the Court, no doubt, but then the defendant can always challenge the decision. Besides, the intervenor, like the plaintiff or original defendant, has to prove his case. Merely allowing the prayer for intervention does not mean that the Court has accepted his claim on merit. Besides, the intervenor, like the plaintiff or original defendant, has to prove his case. Merely allowing the prayer for intervention does not mean that the Court has accepted his claim on merit. And it is always open to the defendant to contest the claim. The intervention, therefore, per 5e is not likely to cause any prejudice to the defendant. 5. In my opinion, having regard to the scheme envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant has no locus standi to challenge the addition of a party. If the right to oppose addition is conceded to him, a priori, he may also have the right to seek addition of a person who is not a party, against the wish of the plaintiff. In the present case, the plaintiffs not having opposed the addition, the petitioners cannot make any grievance against the impugned order. 6. The submission of the counsel was that soon after his intervention was allowed, the intervenor filed application for transposition as co- plaintiff. This submission, I am afraid, has no relevance because it transpired in course of hearing that the application filed for transposition was rejected by the court. 7. This civil revision has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.