JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, Acting C.J. 1. Petitioner's application for being impleaded as a party to the suit (T.S. No. 27 of 1997) pending before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Titilagarh, in terms of Order 1. Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "the Code") having been turned down by him, and the order of rejection having been upheld in revision by the learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Ram Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff, who was the father of opp. parties 1 to 11, filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the suit land by ejecting the defendant Hanuman Prasad Agarwal from the suit house. Description of the suit house is given in the Schedule to the plaint. While the suit was being heard, an application was filed by the present petitioner, styled to be one under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Section 51 of the Code, with a prayer to implead him as defendant No. 2 in the suit. His stand was that his father Radheshyam Agarwal was a partner in a partnership form along with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal. Late Ram Chandra Jain, the original plaintiff had negotiated with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and Radheshyam Agarwal for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and had received a part of the consideration money. That being the position, the father of the petitioner and after his death the petitioner was in possession of the suit land. That, according to the petitioner, was sufficient to make him a necessary party to the suit. Plaintiff filed objection to the petition denying the averment to the effect that the petitioner's father was a partner and/or there was any agreement for sale as contended. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Learned Civil Judge observed that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit. The conclusions were affirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Titilagarh in Civil Revision No. 13 of 1997. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a necessary party as his father was a partner in the partnership firm with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and after his death the interest in the partnership property and/or in any property where the partnership had interest continued with the petitioner. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was a necessary party as his father was a partner in the partnership firm with Hanuman Prasad Agarwal and after his death the interest in the partnership property and/or in any property where the partnership had interest continued with the petitioner. 4. Mr. A. K. Nanda, learned counsel for opp. parties 1 to 11, submitted that interestingly Hanuman Prasad Agarwal is not a party in the present writ petition. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the petitioner's father was a partner in any partnership, as claimed, that is of no consequence as the partnership came to an end after the death of the petitioner's father. Therefore, the petitioner was not a necessary party. According to him, the prayer has been rightly rejected, as the sole object for which the application was filed was to prolong the proceeding. 5. At this juncture, it is necessary to delineate the scope and ambit of Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code and the 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 claim, 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 marking 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. 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 the fact that Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-rule (2) is meant to give every person, whose rights might be affected by the ultimate decree, an opportunity of being heard. 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 the fact that Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-rule (2) is meant to give every person, whose rights might be affected by the ultimate decree, an opportunity of being heard. A bare reading of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code 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 questions involved in the suit would mean the questions concerning the parties to the suit and not the questions concerning a third party. In short, the Court has to determine if such a person ought to have been joined as a 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 such person was necessary to decide the dispute between the parties to the suit. It would mean that if a person was a necessary party, the Court must order for addition of that person as a party to the suit. In case such a party was only a property party, he can be added if the Court holds that to decide the 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. Two tests for determining the questions who is a necessary party to a proceeding are : (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question; and (2) it is not possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. Two tests for determining the questions who is a necessary party to a proceeding are : (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question; and (2) it is not possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 covers two types of cases : (a) a party who ought to have been joined but not joined; and (b) 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. Therefore, Rule 10 (2) of Order 1 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 presence of such a party is appropriate in view of the subject-matter in adjudication. If the answer is 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 Code relates to the party . 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 Code relates to the party . whose "presence before the Court may be necessary" in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Where the interest in the property is or would be an issue, the contender claiming such an interest in the property would be entitled to join as a property party. It is not compulsive under the rule to show always that the presence of the party applying to be joined is necessary for the 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 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, and it must arrive at a conclusion whether the addition is redundant or legal for the effective and final adjudication of the litigation between the parties. The discretion of the Court in directing impleadment of a party should be exercised in a reasonable manner so as not to cause inconvenience or embarrassment. Before directing a party to be impleaded, Court has to be prima facie satisfied about the bona fides of the applicant, the plausibility of his claims and the genuineness of his interest in the litigation. 6. In the background of the position of law highlighted above vis- a-vis the factual position, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. The writ application has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.K. Misra, J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed