JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, A.C.J. 1. Order passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in Munsif Appeal No. 12 of 1993 on 15.2.1997 is under challenge in this application. By the said order two applications, one filed under Order 6, Rule 17 and the other under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') were disposed of. Case at hand relates to the order passed in respect of the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by opp. party Nos. 3 to 6. It is to be noted that the Original Suit No. 719 of 1989-I was filed by petitioner as plaintiff in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Balasore for a declaration that the orders passed in O.L.R. Revision Case Nos. 77 of 1987 and 84 of 1987 by Member, Board of Revenue on 24.8.1989 were illegal, without jurisdiction, void and inoperative and the same were not binding on him. Further prayer was for declaration of right, title and interest in respect of the suit land. Prayer was also made for restraining the defendants, i.e., the State of Orissa represented through the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta permanently from interfering with possession in respect of the suit land measuring Ac. 0.28 1/2 decimals. As the suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.1.1993 and 23.1.1993 respectively, Munsif Appeal No. 12 of 1997 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Balasore. An application was filed by opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 purportedly under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC with a prayer to implead them as respondents in the appeal. Detailed objection was filed by petitioner stating that they were not either necessary or proper parties and the belated attempt to be impleaded was intended to linger the proceedings. 2. The learned District Judge disposed of the appeal with the following observations so far as the application under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC is concerned. "The other petition under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC filed by some strangers, of the village in question is considered. The Government of Orissa have been made party in the suit represented through Collector, Balasore and Tahasildar, Basta. The disputed property claimed to be belonging to the Government, the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta are most likely to guard the interest of the properties. They are competent authorities to contest the appeal. The Government of Orissa have been made party in the suit represented through Collector, Balasore and Tahasildar, Basta. The disputed property claimed to be belonging to the Government, the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta are most likely to guard the interest of the properties. They are competent authorities to contest the appeal. The villagers seeking to be impleaded as respondents in the appeal cannot afford to provide better safeguard than that of the respondents impleaded. Therefore, instead of making the matter cumbersome I filed no substantial reason for these persons to be impleaded as necessary parties under Order 1, Rule 10, CPC. However, the villagers now seeking the relief in this Court to be impleaded as parties are proper parties in absence of whom an effective decree can be drawn after adjudication of the dispute. They are not necessary parties that in their absence the decree, if passed, would become infructuous and a nullity. Since they have made their appearance in this appeal, they are impleaded as proper parties......" 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the reasoning indicated by the learned District Judge is absolutely confusing and is without any basis. Having observed that the defendants, i.e., the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Basta are most likely to safeguard the interest of State Government in the properties involved and the applicants were in no position to provide such safeguard, the further direction to implead opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 treating them as proper parties is absolutely erroneous. 4. At this juncture, it is necessary to delineate the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC and true purport of the provision. The object of Order 1, Rule 10 is not to change the scope and character of the suit by adding new parties or to enable them to litigate their own independent claims, but simply to help them to avoid litigation which might otherwise become necessary. There may arise cases where the Court feels that in spite of the opposition of the plaintiff, it is necessary to add a person as defendant since in the absence of that person it finds itself helpless and unable to effectively and completely settle the matter in controversy and that its failure to do so will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. The balance has, therefore, to be struck by the Court in each case by making a sound judicial approach and where it fails to do so, there is scope for interference. It is to be noted that the law is well-settled that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and as a result, therefore, no person should be impleaded as a party to the suit whom the plaintiff opposes. But at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-rule (2) is meant to give every person an opportunity of being heard whose rights might be affected by the ultimate decree. A bare reading of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the CPC shows that the Court has power to direct a person to be made a party to the suit if such a person is a necessary party or that the Court feels the necessity of impleading him with a view to adjudicate upon all the questions involved in the suit. The question involved in the suit would mean the questions concerning the parties to the suit and not with the questions concerning third party. In short the Court has to determine if such a person ought to have been joined as party. In other words, Court has to determine whether such a person is a necessary party without whose presence no relief can be granted to the plaintiff or the defendant. In the alternative the Court has to determine whether the presence of any such person was necessary to decide the disputes between the parties to the suit. In other words, it would mean that if a person was a necessary party the Court must order for the addition of that person as party to the suit. In case such a party was only a proper party can be added if the Court holds that to decide dispute between the parties, his presence was necessary. The object of the rule is to enable the Court to try and determine, once for all, material questions common to the parties and to third parties and not merely the questions between the parties to the suit. The object of the rule is to enable the Court to try and determine, once for all, material questions common to the parties and to third parties and not merely the questions between the parties to the suit. Two tests for determining the question who is a necessary party to a proceeding are, firstly, there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question, and secondly, it should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. Sub-rule (2) covers two types of cases : (a) of a party who ought to have been joined but not joined and is a necessary party, and (b) of a party without whose presence the question involved in the case cannot be completely decided. The former is called a necessary party and the latter a proper party. Sub-rule (2) of Order 1, Rule 10, therefore, is attracted when the question is covered by one of the above. [See Kanhu Gauda Vs. D. Kodandi Dora and Others, ]. The Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, observed as follows : "To answer the question raised it would be convenient at the outset to ascertain who are necessary or proper parties in a proceeding. The law on the subject is well settled, it is enough if we state the principle. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding." A party seeking such a joinder as a proper party will have to prima facie establish that such a party has interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and as such should be before the Court. The simple test in such controversy would be as to whether the presence of such a party is appropriate in view of the subject-matter in adjudication. If the answer be in the affirmative, joinder can be permitted. By reason of direct interest in the subject-matter or even by reason of eventual reliefs sought, such a test would be answered. Power being there, it is all a matter of appreciation of the controversy in issue and its possible ramifications. If the answer be in the affirmative, joinder can be permitted. By reason of direct interest in the subject-matter or even by reason of eventual reliefs sought, such a test would be answered. Power being there, it is all a matter of appreciation of the controversy in issue and its possible ramifications. The last limb of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the CPC relates to the party whose "presence before the Court may be necessary" in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Where the interest in the property is or would be in issue, the contender claiming such an interest in property would be entitled to join as proper parties. It is not compulsive under the rule to show always that the presence of the party applying to be joined is necessary for determination of the questions as between the parties already on the records. The Court is required simply to see, whether the addition is necessary and should not as a general rule apply the principle of dominus litis in favour of the plaintiff as a rule of universal application. The Court must examine the propriety or otherwise of the merits of the case as reflected and demonstrated in the petition of and it must arrive at a conclusion whether the addition is redundant or legal for effective and final adjudication of the litigation between the parties. The discretion of the Court in directing impletion of party should be exercised in a reasonable manner so as not to cause inconvenience or embarrassment. Before directing a party to be impleaded, a Court has to be prima facie satisfied about the bona fides, of the applicant, the plausibility of his claim and the genuineness of his interest in the litigation. 5. Learned District Judge found that opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 were not necessary parties, but merely because they had appeared in the appeal they were directed to be impleaded as parties. The reasoning indicated is fallacious, and is indefensible. That being the position, the order to the effect that present opp. party Nos. 3 to 6 were to be impleaded as respondents, stands vacated. The Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed