1. Impugned is the Order dated 3rd of October' 2008 where under an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C) has been allowed and respondent Laxman Choudhary has been impleaded as party-defendant no.3 in the suit. 2. Suit for declaration captioned Sant Singh v. State & Anr., is pending before the Court of Sub Judge (C.J.M) Jammu, wherein declaration bas been sought so as to declare the petitioner (plaintiff) as owner of the land measuring 75 feet x 120 feet covered by survey no. 78, situated in Sector A, Block-D, extension Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The said landed property allegedly has been leased out by the plaintiff to Aparna Ashram through its founder President Shri Swami Dhirendra Bhramchari for a period of 99 years, vide lease deed dated 23rd of July' 1964. The said President allegedly died issueless. Then pursuant to Government Order No. 722-GAD of 1994 dated 19th of August' 1994, the defendant no.2 (Divisional Commissioner, Jammu) has been appointed as Nodal Officer by defendant no.1 (Chief Secretary). The said position prompted the plaintiff (petitioner herein) to file the suit with the prayer that he be declared a owner of the said property and that defendants i.e., Chief Secretary to J&K Government and Divisional Commissioner, Jammu, be directed to hand over the possession of the said property. 3. Respondent no.1 filed an application for being impleaded as party-defendant claiming therein to be the legal heir of late Swami Dhirendra Bhramchari as the same position is supported by a decree passed by the Court of Munsiff, Jammu on 11th of April' 2005. Learned trial Court has noticed the position of the said decree wherein respondent no.1 has been declared as legal heir vis-a-vis property mentioned in the schedule annexed thereto wherein the suit property does not figure. Learned trial Court (Sub Judge) has correctly noticed that it is a matter for trial to decide as to whether the office of President is heritable, whether the President has contributed for creation of assets in question and as such had any interest so as to determine the entitlement of respondent no.1 to inherit the same. Finally has rightly concluded that respondent no.1 is a necessary party. 4. Addition or deletion of the parties has an object of avoiding embarrassment and multiplicity of litigation. Finally has rightly concluded that respondent no.1 is a necessary party. 4. Addition or deletion of the parties has an object of avoiding embarrassment and multiplicity of litigation. The position of respondent having inherited certain properties in the capacity of legal heir clothes the said respondent with a right to claim interest in the properties of the deceased. In view of the decree, respondent figures as legal heir, what can be his right vis-a-vis the position of the President (deceased) and then the lease hold rights, are in fact the questions which require adjudication. When it is so, respondent cannot be asked to have resort to other litigative process hence for effectual adjudication, participation of the respondent no.1 is indispensible. 5. It is no doubt true that the plaintiff is dominus litis, he cannot be forced to fight against the persons against whom he does not claim any relief. The underlying principle for exercising discretion under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) C.P.C is that the addition of the persons as a party shall be necessary for effectual and complete adjudication upon all points in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of litigation is one of the factors to be taken note of. It is true that the plaintiff has not claimed any relief against respondent no.1 but cause for filing the suit arises only with the death of the President (Swami Dhirendra Bhramchari). The question of inheritance to the office of the President has to be looked into, then question of determination of lease, which subsists as being for a period of 99 years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the respondent no.1 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, referred to judgments i.e., AIR 1977, Goa & Daman Diu 4; AIR 1975 Punjab & Haryana 184; 2002 KLJ 333; 2003(3) JKJ 300 [HC] 7. The principle as has been laid down in all the above referred judgments is that the plaintiff is "Dominus Litis" so it is his choice to make any person as defendant against whom relief is available. Third party against whom no relief is sought and whose presence is not necessary for deciding the suit cannot be arrayed as a party. 8. Every case has to be considered in the back drop of its own facts and features. However, principles as laid down have to be followed. Third party against whom no relief is sought and whose presence is not necessary for deciding the suit cannot be arrayed as a party. 8. Every case has to be considered in the back drop of its own facts and features. However, principles as laid down have to be followed. Court is clothed with the powers by Order 10 Rule 2 of C.P.C to strike or add parties at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without application of either party. The said power has to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Underlying object is to ensure effectual and complete adjudication and to settle all the questions involved in the suit. 9. The learned trial Court has correctly noticed the features of the case and has rightly appreciated the matter, therefore, has rightly impleaded the respondent as party defendant to the suit. By impleadment no special right is conferred but such impleadment is to help the effectual adjudication and settlement of all the questions. 10. No material irregularity, lack of jurisdiction or failure of justice is to occasion by the order impugned. Therefore, same is upheld. Revision petition being devoid of force is dismissed. 11. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 15th of December' 2010. Copy of the judgment along with trial Court record be sent back forthwith.