JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. :- This application under Order 1 rule 10 (2) read with section 151 of the code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) has been preferred by the applicants/defendants (hereafter referred to as the defendant), praying that the Punjab National Bank. Mehatpur. through its Branch Manager, may be added as a co-plaintiff or as a defendant in the suit instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs (hereafter referred to .s the plaintiff). 2. The material and the relevant facts for he purpose of disposal of this application are that the plaintiff have instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 14.43.400 - against the defendants. Their case is that plaintiff No. 1 is a duly registered Association. Plaintiff No.2 is the authorized representative of plaintiff No. 1 to look after its affairs and is authorised to sue on its behalf. Plaintiff No. 1 owned a brick kiln in village Basdehra. Notified Area Committee. Mehatpur. Tehsil and District Una. which was insured with the defendants for a sum of Rs.26 lacs, in respect of various items and a sum of Rs.36.299/- had been paid towards the premium for the period 4.7.95 to 3.7.1996. Defendant No.2. after physical verification of stocks/items, intended to be insured, had issued a cover note No. 110.902./11/1/89/95 dated 3.7.1995 and had assured that the loss, if any. caused due to fire, flood etc. to the insured items would be duly compensated to the extent of Rs.26 lacs. Because of hea\y rains and. consequential floods, on the night intervening 13th and 14th August. 1995. plaintiff No. 1 suffered enormous loss of stock/ items. The requisite intimation in this regard was given by the plaintiffs to defendant No.2 vide application dated 15.8.1995. The plaintiffs were thereafter asked to submit a written claim to defendant No.2 which was submitted on 24.8.1995 to the extent of Rs. 14.93.500/-. The defendants directed M/s. Duggal Gupta and Associates. Surveyors and Loss Assessors. Chandigarh to visit the spot, which they did on 23.8.1995. but did not appreciate the factual position as was explained by the plaintiffs and the respectable persons of the locality. No statement was recorded on the spot. The plaintiffs, however, handed over the required documents to the assessors as per their requirement. The defendants directed another investigation in the matter through Sudarshan Singh Sachar. who visited the spot after a period of three months of the occurrence. No statement was recorded on the spot. The plaintiffs, however, handed over the required documents to the assessors as per their requirement. The defendants directed another investigation in the matter through Sudarshan Singh Sachar. who visited the spot after a period of three months of the occurrence. The said investigator inquired into the matter in a manner unknown to law. Various letters received from the investigator were replied to by the plaintiffs and he submitted his report on 23.9.1996 which report is without any foundation and was submitted after the filing of a complaint by the plaintiffs before the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The report of the said investigator is stated to be an investigation of criminal nature, having no relevance to the real controversy and the factual position. The plaintiffs complaint before the said Commission was finally dismissed as withdrawn on 11.9.1998. with liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. Hence the suit. 3. Initially the defendants failed to appear on the due date and. therefore, were proceeded against ex-part vide order dated 14.3.2000. passed by the learned Registrar (V) in exercise of the delegated powers of this Court. Subsequently, they applied for setting aside the Ex-part order and their application (OMP No. 109 of 2000) was allowed. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed on 7.12.2000 and the suit was thereafter to be posted for evidence of the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the present application has been filed by the defendants on 18.4.2001. 4. It is averred in the present application that the defendants had issued Insurance Policy/ Cover note to Punjab National Bank. Mehatpur. A/C M/s. Durga Gram Udyog Bricks Workers Welfare Association and the premium was received from the said bank, therefore, the Insurance Policy and Cover Note were supplied to the bank. The said bank is. thus, a necessary and proper party. Hence the application. The plaintiffs contested the application and in their reply claimed that the application was not maintainable and the defendants have no locus stand to file the present application. It has also been averred that cover note was not issued to the Punjab National Bank nor such bank is a necessary party. The amount of premium though paid by the said bank, but such payment was as bankers of the plaintiff. 5. It has also been averred that cover note was not issued to the Punjab National Bank nor such bank is a necessary party. The amount of premium though paid by the said bank, but such payment was as bankers of the plaintiff. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 6. The learned counsel for the defendants had contended that the premium was paid by the bank proposed to be added as a party, therefore, it is a necessary party and deserves to be added as plaintiff or defendant. 7. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that primarily it was for the plaintiffs to choose the manner in which the suit was to be laid and to decide as to who should be the parties to the suit and the defendants cannot thrust upon the plaintiffs any addition of party. It was further contended that in view of the averments and claim in the plaint, all necessary parties have been joined and the plaintiffs have no claims whatsoever against the proposed party who is only banker of the plaintiff and not a party to the contract of insurance, hence neither necessary nor a proper party to the suit. 8. In case Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Anr. v. Hakam Rai Durga Dass & Ors.. (Civil Revision No.76 of 2001. decided on 13.9.2001). this Court while dealing with the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code, held as under: "8. It is well settled that plaintiff is the domimis litis. He cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not claim any relief. It is for the plaintiff to decide as to who should be impleaded as parties to the suit and a party cannot be thrust on an unwilling plaintiff unless otherwise provided by law. 9. Order 1 Rule 10 of \he code empowers the Court to add parties. However, such powers are discretionary and in exercise of such powers, the Court may add a part} to the suit in the following circumstances: (i) when such a party ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant and is not so joined, or (ii) when without the presence of such party, the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. Thus, the deciding factor will be whether the party sought to be impleaded is a necessary and proper party. A necessary party is one without whom no effective decision in the suit can be taken and a proper part is one whose presence is necessary for the complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceedings. If the part} sought to be added is a necessary and proper part} as aforesaid, it should ordinarily be allowed to be added under Order 1 rule 10 of the code. However, a person who is neither a necessary part}- or a proper part}", he cannot be allowed to be added as a party under the rule supra." 9. It may also be pointed out that before a fart} may be-, ordered to be added under Order 1 rule 10 of the Cede, it must be shown that the part} proposed to be added as such is directly or legally interested in the suit and the suit may lead to a result which will affect it legally i.e. by curtailing its legal rights. Mere commercial interest of the part} sought to be impleaded will not entitle such impleadment. It is so because the power to added party is not one of initial jurisdiction but of a judicial discretion. 10. It cannot be disputed that basically it is for the plaintiff to array such parties to the suit as he deems fit and proper. Any person who feels that the result of the suit instituted, may affect him by curtailing his rights may apply for adding him as a party. If such person has not been added as a part} by the plaintiff nor he comes forward with an application to add him a part} to the suit, any other part} had to make out a very strong case to implead such person as a party to the suit. It is so because the failure of the plaintiff to implead a necessary party to the suit is bound to lead to the dismissal of the suit and the party sought to be impleaded may have its own legal remedy if its legal rights are effected in a suit in which he is not impleaded as a parry and it is basically for such party to take a decision whether it should approach the Court to add it as a party to the suit. 11. In the present case there is nothing in the plaint which may even remotely suggest that the proposed party is either a necessary or j proper party to the suit. Similar!} I do not find any averment in the written statement of the defendants nor any such averment was pointed out at the time of arguments which may even by implications suggest, that the parts- proposed to be added is directly or legally interested in the outcome of the suit. Even the contents of this application do not j disclose that the proposed part has any direct or legal interest in the suit. On the contrary fr-oni the respective averment of the parties in their pleadings it is clear that private of contract was between them and none-else. This is the only conclusion which can at this stage be drawn from the contents of Para 2 of the plaint and Paras 2 and 3 of the written statement. Thus the defendants have failed to make out a case for impleadment of the proposed parry. 12. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated therein, there is no merit and substance in this application which deserves to be dismissed. 13. Resultantly this application is dismissed.