ORDER These writ petitions are filed praying to set aside the order dated 4-2-2009 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udupi, on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 filed under Order 1, Rule 10(2) read with Section 94(e) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in O.S. No. 24 of 2009 as per Annexure-A wherein the respondents 2 to 16 have been impleaded as defendants in the said suit. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 7-10-2005. After purchase of the said property, he made an application for fixing the boundaries of the property purchased by him. The Tahsildar ordered for measurement of the land for fixing the boundaries through a surveyor. Further, it was contended that the suit schedule properties were converted for non-residential purpose. It is alleged by the petitioner that the first respondent-Grama Panchayat attempted to form the road on the western side of the land bearing Sy. No. 121/2 forcibly and Jelly stones are also dumped near the plaint schedule property. When the petitioner enquired with the workers, they told that the Panchayat will form the road by encroaching the property belonged to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 24 of 2009 seeking for injunction restraining the first respondent from forming the road in the suit schedule property. The petitioner has contended that without acquisition, the property of the petitioner cannot be encroached for formation of the road. 3. Respondents 2 to 16 on coming to know about the filing of the suit by the petitioner, filed LA. Nos. 3 and 4 under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to get themselves impleaded as defendants in the suit. The respondents 2 to 16 have contended that the general public are also using the said road since several years. The said road lies in between Survey No. 121/1A and Survey No. 121/2 of Chanthar Village and was formed by the Panchayat many years ago. It is the contention of the respondents 2 to 16 that the petitioner has falsely contended that Panchayat is forcibly forming the new road in his property. The said road lies in between Survey No. 121/1A and Survey No. 121/2 of Chanthar Village and was formed by the Panchayat many years ago. It is the contention of the respondents 2 to 16 that the petitioner has falsely contended that Panchayat is forcibly forming the new road in his property. Further respondents 2 to 16 contended that if any order has been passed without hearing the respondents, it would adversely affect them as well as the general public. Hence, sought for impleading them as defendants to the suit. 4. The petitioner filed objections to the said applications contending that the impleading applicants are not necessary parties and their presence is not required for the disposal of the said suit. 5. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udupi was pleased to allow the applications I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 by its impugned order dated 4-2-2009 and ordered to implead the applicants 2 to 16 as defendants 2 to 16 in O.S. No. 24 of 2009, holding that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner filed the present writ petitions challenging the said order. 6. Sri V.S. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that defendants 2 to 16 are not necessary parties. The suit is between the petitioner and the Grama Panchayat and also an order of injunction is sought only against the panchayat, in other words injunction order is against the personnel and not at rem. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the defendants' right cannot be adjudicated in the suit filed by the petitioner. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in Sri Vardhaman Stanakvisi Jain Sravak Sangh v Sri Swamy Sangli Muneswara Temple Trust (Regd) v Chandrakumar and Another; Thimmegowda v Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka and Others and another decision in Rekha v Hindu Seva Prathistana, Bangalore and Others, to contend that the 3rd party against whom no relief has been sought cannot be impleaded as a party and sought for quashing the impugned order made in I.A. Nos. 3 and 4. 7. 3 and 4. 7. On the other hand, Sri S.R. Hegde Hudlamane, learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 16 contended that the petitioner has suppressed several material facts that the Chanthar Panchayat is forming the road on the property belonged to the petitioner is incorrect, in fact, Chanthar Devu Bail road is already existing since several years. The said road passes through Survey Nos. 121, 163, 147 etc. The respondents 2 to 16 and other villagers are using the said road to reach various other villages. It was further contended that the villagers have given the land for formation of the road and that the vendor of the petitioner one Kochikar Brothers who was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 121/2 has also given consent and gave up his right to the extent of 0.30 cents of land for formation of the road. He has also given a consenting letter to that effect. The local MLA inaugurated the said road on 2-3-2002. Further respondents 2 to 16 have also produced the consent letter and Inaugural function invitation and village sketch to contend that the road is already in existence and Panchayat is not forming any new road. It is also contended that respondents 2 to 16 are necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the dispute filed by the petitioner. Any order passed in the suit will adversely affect respondents 2 to 16 and also the general public, hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 16 and perused the materials on record. Order 1, Rule 10(2) contemplates that 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 be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendants, 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. 9. 9. The bear reading of the provision shows that the Court has power to direct a person to be made a party to the suit, if any such person ought to have been made party or that the Court feels necessity of impleading him with a view to adjudicate upon and settle the question involved in the suit effectually and completely. Further, the Court has to determine whether the presence of any such person is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties. In case, such a party is only a proper party, then that party can be added, if the Court holds that his presence is necessary to decide the dispute between the parties effectually and completely. The Court has to exercise its discretionary while impleading the party in the light of the above provision. In the instant case any such order that is to be passed in favour of the petitioner, will adversely affect defendants 2 to 16 and other general public who are using the road in question. The prayer made in the suit is to restrain the first respondent in forming the road. The materials have been produced before this Court to show that the road was already formed and is existing since many years. Hence, respondents 2 to 16 are proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the suit. 10. In that view of the matter, there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udupi in O.S. No. 24 of 2009 on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.