ORDER V.K. Agrawal, J. By the impugned order dated 12-7-2000, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC (Annexure P/2) filed by the present respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, has been allowed and the said society, has been permitted to be impleaded as Defendant No. 3. Facts leading to the present revision stated in brief are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed a suit praying for injunction against the defendants/respondent No. 1 State of Madhya Pradesh and respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, restraining them from demolishing, removing or interfering with the construction over the suit land bearing Khasra No. 28/1/2, situate at Idgah Hills, Bhopal. It was alleged that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff/petitioner from one Iqbal khan by registered sale-deeds executed in the year 1992. They had thereafter made construction thereon after obtaining necessary permission from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning and also from the respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation, Bhopal. It was further alleged that subsequently the Directorate of Town and Country Planning issued a memo dated 15-6-1999 purporting to cancel the building permission granted to the plaintiffs. It was also averred that the defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 were interfering in the construction over the suit land and they are also threatening to demolish the construction raised by him. During the pendency of the suit the present respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, alleging that the plaintiff/petitioner had entered into an agreement with it for sale of the suit land, and that the said society-respondent No. 3 has filed a suit for specific performance registered as Civil Suit No. 109-A/1998, pending in the Court of Tenth Additional District Judge, Bhopal. In the said suit, the trial Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, by order dated 6-5- 1998. It was alleged that as the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti have interest in the suit property, the same are likely to be affected by the result of suit. Therefore, it was prayed that the said society be impleaded as defendant, so that it had an opportunity of protecting its interest in the suit property. It was alleged that as the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti have interest in the suit property, the same are likely to be affected by the result of suit. Therefore, it was prayed that the said society be impleaded as defendant, so that it had an opportunity of protecting its interest in the suit property. The learned trial Court in the impugned order observed that since there was an alleged agreement between the plaintiff/petitioner and respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti for sale of the suit land and since a suit is pending between them, therefore, the impleadment of respondent No. 3 would facilitate the decision of the present suit. The trial Court was therefore of the view that the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti is a necessary party to the suit. Therefore, the trial Court allowed its application for impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code. It was submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the suit filed by him is based on the allegation that the defendant/respondents No. 1 and 2 - the State of Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation, have illegally withdrawn permission of construction granted to the plaintiff/petitioner and are trying to interfere in his possession. Therefore, prayer for permanent injunction as against the defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2, was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not claim any relief as against the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti. It was therefore submitted that the controversy between the plaintiff/petitioner and the defendants No. 1 and 2 could be effectually and finally adjudicated without impleading respondent No. 3- Samiti. It has further been contended that the impleadment of respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti would change the nature of the suit and adjudication regarding the alleged agreement between the plaintiff/petitioner and respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, as set up by the respondent No. 3 would be required. It has been contended that the plaintiff/petitioner who is the dominus litis, could not be compelled to implead the respondent No. 3, who is neither proper nor necessary party in the suit. It has been contended that the plaintiff/petitioner who is the dominus litis, could not be compelled to implead the respondent No. 3, who is neither proper nor necessary party in the suit. As against this, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, supported the impugned order and submitted that since the respondent No. 3 is claiming interest over the suit property by virtue of the agreement entered into between it and the plaintiff/petitioner, its interest are likely to be adversely affected by the result of the present suit. It was, therefore, contended that the impleadment of respondent No. 3 in the suit was just and proper. In view of the controversy as above it has to be considered whether the prayer made by the defendant/respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti for being impleaded as a party, deserved to be allowed? Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC provides for addition of 'proper' or 'necessary' parties and striking out of improper or unnecessary parties. Such a party may be either the plaintiff or the defendant. The said Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of CPC reads: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. Thus, a person may be added as a party when: (a) he ought to have been joined as a party, or (b) his presence is necessary in order to dispose of the suit completely and effectually. It is settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis. He has the choice to implead only those persons as defendant as against whom he wishes to vindicate his right under Order 1, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. It is settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis. He has the choice to implead only those persons as defendant as against whom he wishes to vindicate his right under Order 1, Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code. Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, provides that it is open to the trial Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle ail the questions involved in the suit. Therefore, it would appear that the matter of additions of parties would mostly depend on the question as to whether the presence of that party before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit? Referring to the full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Banaras Bank Ltd. vs. Bhagwan Das and others AIR 1947 All 18, the Apex Court observed in Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate Vs. Rama Krishna Narain and Others, , that the true tests which have to be applied for determining the question as to who is a necessary party to the suit are:-- (i) Is there a right to relief against such party, in respect of the matter involved in the proceeding in question; and (ii) Would it be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such party? It was also observed therein that the eventual interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be held to be the true test of impleading a party. In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, , the Apex Court observed: It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. But that appears to be a desirable consequence of the rule rather than its main objective. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness. It is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of relevant arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest. It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights. It is difficult to say that the rule contemplate joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. Reference may also be made to New Redbank Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kumkum Mittal and Others, , in the above context. In Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and Others, It was observed that necessary party is that in whose absence the suit cannot be effectually disposed of. Similarly in a Full Bench decision of this Court in Panne and another vs. Jeewanlal and another 1976 MPU 170 (F.B.) : 1976 JU 84, it has been observed that in Order 1, Rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Code, there are two expressions (i) "who ought to have been joined" and (ii) "whose presence before the Court may be necessary". These indicate that there are two categories of parties: (a) necessary party as indicated by the expression "ought to have been joined", and (b) proper party as indicated by the expression "whose presence before the Court may be necessary". It was further observed therein that the Court has no jurisdiction or power to add a person as a party who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. It was further observed therein that the Court has no jurisdiction or power to add a person as a party who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party. Keeping in view the principles of law as above, the facts of the present case may now be examined. To reiterate the plaintiff/petitioner filed the present suit complaining action of the defendants No. 1 and 2 in canceling the permission to build on the suit land, granted to him earlier, and steps taken by them for demolition of the construction already raised by the plaintiffs on the suit land. The plaintiffs therefore prayed that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 be restrained from interfering with his possession over the suit land and also from demolishing the construction made by the plaintiffs on the suit land. Clearly, therefore the plaintiffs/petitioners have raised no grievance against the respondent No. 3 and seek no relief against it. As noted earlier, the respondent No. 3 filed application under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, wherein he prayed for its impleadment on the ground that it had entered into an agreement for purchase of the suit land from plaintiffs/petitioners. It further appears that the said respondent No. 3 has already filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement and has obtained a stay in that suit, against the present plaintiffs/petitioners. Even if the averments as above of defendant No. 3 are accepted on their face value, the presence of respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti in the present suit does not appear to be necessary; because the present suit as filed by the plaintiff/petitioner could be adjudicated without his presence. It may be reiterated in the above context that the complaint of the plaintiffs/petitioners in the present suit is that the defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 State of Madhya Pradesh and Municipal Corporation are threatening to interfere in his possession and taking steps to demolish the construction raised by the plaintiff on the suit land. Obviously, the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti cannot have any interest in the controversy as above. The suit can be effectually and completely decided without the presence of respondent No. 3. Moreover, since the respondent No. 3 has already filed a suit and has also obtained injunction in the said suit his interest are fully protected. Obviously, the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti cannot have any interest in the controversy as above. The suit can be effectually and completely decided without the presence of respondent No. 3. Moreover, since the respondent No. 3 has already filed a suit and has also obtained injunction in the said suit his interest are fully protected. Therefore, the defendant/respondent No. 3 cannot either be treated as necessary or proper party in the suit. Learned trial Court allowing the application has observed that since there is an agreement between the plaintiff and respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, and since there is already a suit between them, therefore impleadment of defendant No. 3 would help in adjudication of the present suit. The observation as above is totally misconceived. In fact, result of impleadment of respondent No. 3 in the present suit would be that the nature of controversy would be changed and the plaintiff would be required to defend the claim of defendant/respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, that there was an agreement between the latter and the plaintiff. The plaintiff being dominus litis could not be dragged into such controversy against his wishes. The learned trial Court has relied upon the case on Sampatbai and Another Vs. Madhu Singh Gambhirji, . It has been observed in the said case:-- The test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as a defendant would be according to or against the wishes of the plaintiff or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising on the cause of action averred by the plaintiff. It is whether the relief claimed by the plaintiff will directly affect the intervener in the enjoyment of his rights. It is not enough that the plaintiffs rights, and rights which the person desiring to be made a defendant wishes to assert should be connected with the same subject-matter. The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the case. A person is legally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally - that is by curtailing his legal rights. The intervener must be directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the case. A person is legally interested in the answer only if he can say that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally - that is by curtailing his legal rights. The ratio of the above case when applied to the facts of the present case does not go to support the application filed by the respondent No. 3 for impleadment. As noticed earlier, since the relief claimed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in the instant case is not going to directly affect the intervener, the respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti and its rights under the alleged agreement set up by it, would not be curtailed by the result of the present suit. Hence, the intervener-respondent No. 3 is not directly and legally interested in the answers to the questions involved in the suit. Hence, his application for impleadment should not have been allowed. It is therefore clear that impleadment of respondent No. 3 would result in serious prejudice to the plaintiffs/petitioners. In the circumstances, this revision deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. The application of respondent No. 3 Danish Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti under Order 1, Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, for impleadment stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed