JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. - Whether a lies pendens purchaser should be added as a party either Under Order-1 Rule-10 or Order-22, Rule-10, CPC is the main question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition. 2. The present petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed Civil Suit No.75 of 2003 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Puri inter alias for declaration that he (plaintiff) is the only legal successor of Swarnalata Mohanty and Radhashyam Mohanty of Kumbharpada, Puri and defendant no.1 (present opp. Party no.8) is not the legally married wife of said Radhashym Mohanty and defendant no.2 (present opp. Party no.1) is not the daughter of said Radhashyam Mohanty. He also sought for other incidental and ancillary reliefs as enumerated in paragraph-3 of the writ petition. Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) is the husband of Binodini Mohanty (defendant no.2-present opp. party no.1) and son-in-law of Bainamani Mohanty, (defendant no.1-present opp. party no.8). The aforesaid defendant no.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement denying the plaint averments. They appeared in the court through aforesaid Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9), who is a practicing advocate. In course of the proceeding in the suit, defendant no.1 (Bainamani Mohanty) sold the disputed property, which is the subject matter of the suit in favor of Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9). Such fact regarding devolution of interest of the suit property on Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) was not brought to the notice of the court. When Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) tried to take possession over the suit property by force, the plaintiff came to know about the lies pendens transfer which was effected in the year 2006. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure that the suit reaches its logical, legal and effective determination, the plaintiff (present petitioner) filed a INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011] petition under Order-1, Rule-10 read with Oder-22, Rule-10, C.P.C. for impleading aforesaid Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9), the purchaser of the suit property as a party in the suit. Defendant no.2 (present opp. party no.1) contested the petition by asserting that she is in peaceful possession of the suit property and no attempt had been made by her husband (Subrat Kumar Nayak) to enforce possession over the disputed property. 3. party no.9), the purchaser of the suit property as a party in the suit. Defendant no.2 (present opp. party no.1) contested the petition by asserting that she is in peaceful possession of the suit property and no attempt had been made by her husband (Subrat Kumar Nayak) to enforce possession over the disputed property. 3. Learned court below on consideration of the inter se pleadings of the parties in the proceeding and their submissions, ruled that a lies pendens purchaser being neither a necessary party nor a proper party need not be impleaded when the suit has been posted for argument. Accordingly the petition filed by the present petitioner (plaintiff) under Order-1, Rule-10 read with Order-22, Rule-10, C.P.C. was dismissed. The petitioner has, therefore, been obliged to move this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Amit Prasad Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when Order-22, Rule-10, C.P.C. clearly states in favor of the substitution of the assignee on assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during pendency of the suit, the learned trial court should have impleaded Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) as a party by invoking its jurisdiction under Order-1, Rule-10 read with Order-22, Rule-10, C.P.C. It is further submitted that the learned court below having failed to follow the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marurudraiah & ors. v. B. Sarojamma and ors.; 2009 SAR (Civil) 557 and the decision of this Court in the case of Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Babita Mohanty and Another the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and others v. P. Mohan and others; AIR 2007 S.C. 1062 , to substantiate his contention that a lies pendens purchaser would be a necessary and a proper party to the suit. Learned counsel for the contesting opp. parties on the other hand supports the impugned order. 5. Before addressing the question raised by the parties it is pertinent to state the facts admitted at the Bar that (1) the suit is one for declaration and other consequential reliefs; (2) Sri Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) is a lies pendens purchaser; (3) defendant no.2 (present opp. parties on the other hand supports the impugned order. 5. Before addressing the question raised by the parties it is pertinent to state the facts admitted at the Bar that (1) the suit is one for declaration and other consequential reliefs; (2) Sri Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) is a lies pendens purchaser; (3) defendant no.2 (present opp. party no.1) who is the wife of aforesaid Subrat Kumar Nayak is on record to contest the suit; (4) Sri Subrat Kumar Nayak (opposite party No.9) has not opted to be impleaded as a party and (5) the plaintiff wants that Subrat Kumar Nayak LINGARAJA MOHANTY -V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] (opp. party No.9) be impleaded as a party either Under Ofder-1, Rule-10 or Under Order-22, Rule-10 C.P.C. The grounds on which Subrat Kumar Nayak The rule is based not on the doctrine of notice but on principle of expediency and public policy. Hence, no question of good faith or bona fides arises. This Court proceeded further and observed about the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act in the following words :- The effect of S.52, therefore, is that a lies pendens transferee is bound by the decree whether on contest, ex parte or on compromise. The plaintiff is under no obligation to implead a lies pendens transferee. We do not agree with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lakshmanan Vs. Kamal, that "the effect of Section 52 is to render void as against the decree-holder transfer or other dealing with the suit property pendent elite and he is entitled to ignore it "because Section 52 has been enacted with a view to safeguarding the interest of the plaintiff so that his decree is not defeated at the instance of a third party in whose favor there has been a lies pendens transfer. Our view is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagubai Ammal and Others Vs. B. Shama Rao and Others, . Our view is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in Nagubai Ammal and Others Vs. B. Shama Rao and Others, . This Court proceeded further and quoted and referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court at Page 602 in the aforesaid case of Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao - ...That sale was no doubt pendent elite, but the effect of S.52 is not to wipe it out altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based on the decree in the suit. As between the parties to the transaction, however, it was perfectly valid, and operated to vest the title of the transferor in the transferee.... This Court observed further that "the contention that the words 'the property cannot be transferred' in Section 52 rendered a transfer which fell within the mischief of Section 52 non est was repelled with the following observation" by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagubai Ammal's case :- This contention gives no effect to the words "so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein", which make it clear that the transfer is good INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011 ] except to the extent that it might conflict with rights decreed under the decree or order. It is in this view that transfers pendent elite have been held to be valid and operative as between the parties thereto. ...We are, therefore, unable to accede to the contention of the appellants that a transferor pendent late must, for purposes of S.52, be treated as still retaining title to the properties. With the aforesaid discussion in mind and taking note of decision of this Court in the case of Uchhab Patra Vs. Brundaban Mallik, and Rusi Behera v. Mst. Pancha Behera (1976) 42 CLT 330, this Court in Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu's case (supra), in Paragraph-8, observed thus:- We hope, the aforesaid discussion would have made it clear that a transferee pendent late to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant, the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. He may collude with the plaintiff. That is the reason why G.K. Misra, J. (as he then was) observed that Order 22, Rule 10(1) enabled the transferee to continue the suit with the leave of the Court and though there was no bar operating against the transferor continuing the suit for the benefit of the transferee, Order 22, Rule 10 was an alternative procedure which safe-guarded against the danger that the original plaintiff being no longer interested in the proceedings might not vigorously prosecute the same or might even collude with the adversary and B.K. Ray, J concurred with the aforesaid view in Rusi Behera's case (1976 (42) Cut LT 330) (supra). Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lies pendens transferee a party; under Order 22, Rule 10 an aliened pendent late may be joined as party. The plaintiff is not bound to make him a party. But the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an aliened would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. (See Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, seventh edition, page 253). Proceeding further in the matter, this Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu (supra) held thus :- 9. Though in Basant Ram's case (ILR (1974) Him Pra 276) (supra), it has been held that a lies pendens transferee is not a proper LINGARAJA MOHANTY-V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] party, we are of the view that even if a lies pendens transferee is not a necessary party and the plaintiff can ignore the transfer even if he has notice thereof and a decree or order obtained by him would be binding on the lies pendens transferee, when a motion is made by the lies pendens transferee to be impleaded as a party, the court may, in exercise of its discretion judicially, add him as a proper party to prevent multiplicity of suits. 10. Assuming that he is not a proper party, he may be impleaded as an assignee under the provisions of 0.22, R.10 (1). 10. Assuming that he is not a proper party, he may be impleaded as an assignee under the provisions of 0.22, R.10 (1). Even if an application has been filed under 0.1, R.10, labeling of the application being misconceived, the court should ignore the labeling of the application as one under 0.1, R.10 and treat the same as one filed under 0.22, R.10 (1), C.P.C., if the ingredients thereof are satisfied. This aspect of the law was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Pranakrushna and Others Vs. Umakanta Panda and Others, and rejected the application of the pendent late transferee solely upon a consideration of the principles embodied in Order1, Rule10, CPC. 8. In the case of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu v. Pravat Chandra Chatterjee and others (supra) the petitioner had instituted the suit for a decree for eviction of the defendant, recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation. Opposite Party No.1 denied the assertions of the petitioner and his title. By registered sale deed dated 27.02.1984, a portion of the property involved in the suit was sold by opposite party No.1 in favor of opposite parties 2 and 3 who filed an application on 01.10.1985 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC to be impleaded as parties. Despite objection of the petitioner, by the impugned order the learned Munsif allowed their payer holding that though no doubt the transfer was hit by the rule of lies pendens, inasmuch as the defendant-opposite party No.1 might not be interested after sale in properly conducting the suit and that might cause prejudice to the lies pendens purchasers, they should be arrayed as parties under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. 9. This Court in the aforesaid case, as the discussion shows, brought under the sweep of Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. even a transaction culminating in assignment, creation or devolution of interest by act of parties and held that when there is apprehension regarding collusion of transferor with the adversary party in the suit and there is also apprehension to the effect that the transferor may not prosecute the lies as diligently as he would have, had he not transferred the property, the transferee pendent late is to be held to INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011 ] be having substantial interest in the suit and without being swayed away by the nomenclature of the petition, the competent court has the judicial discretion to implead a lies pendens transferee as a proper party in the suit in such a situation. 10. Same is the view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Amit Kumar Shaw and Another Vs. Farida Khatoon and Another and in that case also the transferees pendent late had come forward to be impleaded as parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanalakshmi and others v. P. Mohan and others, AIR 2007 SC 1062 held that a lies pendens purchaser would be a necessary and a proper party. In the case of Dhanalakshmi, the appellants had purchased the undivided shares of some of the co-sharers and Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling as aforesaid, allowed those appellants to be impleaded as parties for effective carving of shares in the final decree proceeding. This Court in the case of Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd (supra), where also the lies pendens transferee had come forward to be impleaded as parties, has taken the same view by observing thus :- On an analysis of the principles of law, as discussed above, it is evident that the proposition of law that a lies pendens purchaser is not a necessary party to the suit is not an absolute one and the question depends upon facts and circumstances of each case and the Court in a given case has the discretion to add a pendent late transferee as a party to the suit for a substantial justice and effectual adjudication of the suit, and also to avoid multiplicity of litigations. As per the provision of Section 52 of the T.P. Act, a transferor pendent late is treated in the eye of law as a representative-in-interest of the transferee, who shall be bound by the decree that may be passed against the transferor. Therefore, a transferee pendent late has vital interest in the suit property. In a contingency where the transferor after alienating the suit property and having no more any interest, does not properly defend the suit and colludes with the adversaries, the aliened pendent late may be joined as a party and on motion being made, the Court should exercise its discretion judicially and an aliened should ordinarily be allowed to join the suit as a party to enable him to protect his interest. * (the underline words may be read as transferee in place of transferor and transferor in place of transferee) LINGARAJA MOHANTY-V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] 11. The fact in Shuvam Construction Pvt. Ltd (supra) was almost similar to the facts in the case of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu (supra). In both the aforesaid Orissa cases and in both the Supreme Court cases referred to supra, the transferees pendent late had moved the competent court to be added as parties to protect their interest as the transferors after the transfer had lost interest in prosecuting the lies. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances peculiar to the aforesaid cases this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court had allowed the lies pendens purchasers to be added as parties to safeguard their interest. 12. In the case of Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others Hon'ble Supreme Court has addressed the question as to whether application under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court is required under law to be filed by that person alone, upon whom interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit and by no body else. Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-25 of the judgment held thus: 25. Plain language of Rule 10 referred to above does not suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone upon whom the interest has devolved. It simply says that the suit may be continued by the person upon whom such an interest has devolved and this applies in a case where the interest of plaintiff has devolved. Plain language of Rule 10 referred to above does not suggest that leave can be sought by that person alone upon whom the interest has devolved. It simply says that the suit may be continued by the person upon whom such an interest has devolved and this applies in a case where the interest of plaintiff has devolved. Likewise, in a case where interest of defendant has devolved, the suit may be continued against such a person upon whom interest has devolved, but in either eventuality, for continuance of the suit against the persons upon whom the interest has devolved during the pendency of the suit, leave of the Court has to be obtained. If it is laid down that leave can be obtained by that person alone upon whom interest of party to the suit has devolved during its pendency, then there may be preposterous results as such a party might not be knowing about the litigation and consequently not feasible for him to apply for leave and if a duty is cast upon him then in such an eventuality he would be bound by the decree even in cases of failure to apply for leave. As a rule of prudence, initial duty lies upon the plaintiff to apply for leave in case the factum of devolution was within his knowledge or with due diligence could have been known by him. The person upon whom the interest has devolved may also apply for such a leave so that his interest may be properly represented as the original party, if it ceased to have an interest in the subject-matter of dispute by virtue of devolution of interest upon another person, may not take interest therein, in ordinary course, which is but natural, or INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011] by colluding with the other side. If the submission of Shri Mishra is accepted, a party upon whom interest has devolved, upon his failure to apply for leave, would be deprived from challenging correctness of the decree by filing a properly constituted suit on the ground that the original party having lost interest in the subject of dispute, did not properly prosecute or defend the litigation or, in doing so, colluded with the adversary. Any other party, in our view, may also seek leave as, for example, where plaintiff filed a suit for partition and during its pendency he gifted away his undivided interest in the Mitakshara Coparcenary in favor of the contesting defendant, in that event the contesting defendant upon whom the interest of the original plaintiff has devolved has no cause of action to prosecute the suit, but if there is any other co-sharer who is supporting the plaintiff, may have a cause of action to continue with the suit by getting himself transposed to the category of plaintiff as it is well settled that in a partition suit every defendant is plaintiff, provided he has cause of action for seeking partition. Thus, we do not find any substance in this submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and hold that prayer for leave can be made not only by the person upon whom interest has devolved, but also by the plaintiff or any other party or person interested. 13. This Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment in Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu's Case observed, "...............when a motion is made by the lies pendens transferee to be impleaded as a party, the Court may, in exercise of its discretion judicially, add him as a proper party to prevent multiplicity of suits." What are the rights of a lies pendens assignee, not joined in the suit as a party has been well explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh's Case supra. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case on thorough discussion of different provisions of C.P.C. and especially provisions contained in Order 22 Rule10, C.P.C. has held that though the decree passed in absence of the assignee, i.e., the university in that case upon whom the interest of the original defendant devolved, would not make the decree void ab initio so as to invoke application of Section 47 of the CPC and entail dismissal of the execution, yet the validity or otherwise of the decree can be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit or taking any other remedy available under law on the ground that original defendant absented himself from the proceeding of the suit after appearance as it had no longer any interest in the subject of dispute or did not purposely take interest in the proceeding or colluded with the adversary or any other ground permissible under law. The rights of an LINGARAJA MOHANTY -V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] assignee, not joined as a party in the suit as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid though not explained by this Court in so many words in Jagannath Mahaprabhu's Case, had prompted this Court, as it seems, to rule in favor of impleading a lies pendens transferee in the suit by exercise of judicial discretion under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. to prevent multiplicity of suits. 14. The aforesaid discussion must have made clear relative scopes and ambits of Section 52 Transfer Property Act, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 10 C.P.C. In all the aforesaid provisions, in view of the context of the discussion in the present case, the common thread running through the provisions is lies pendens transfer and the common question involved is status / position of a lies pendens transferee in relation to a pending suit. The discussion may be summed up in the following propositions :- (I) The effect of Section 52 Transfer of Property Act is that a lies pendens transferee is bound by the decree whether on contest, ex parte or on compromise. The plaintiff is under no obligation to implead a lies pendens transferee. The discussion may be summed up in the following propositions :- (I) The effect of Section 52 Transfer of Property Act is that a lies pendens transferee is bound by the decree whether on contest, ex parte or on compromise. The plaintiff is under no obligation to implead a lies pendens transferee. (II) A lies pendens transferee has substantive interest over the property transferred in favor of him and he has the obligation to protect such interest being the representative in interest of the transferor because as between the parties to the transaction a lies pendens transfer is perfectly valid and it operates to vest the title of the transferor in the transferee, though Section 52 by its operation sub-ordinates such lies pendens transfer to the rights based on the decree of the suit. (III) Regard being had to the scope of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and the doctrine of lies pendens enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act which does not obligate the plaintiff to implead a lies pendens transferee, such a lies pendens transferee is not a necessary party within the meaning and scope of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. but he is a proper party as held supra in different judicial pronouncements. The plaintiff, in view of the rule of lies pendens is under no obligation to add lies pendens transferee as a party by invoking the provisions of Order 1 Rule10, C.P.C. and the plaintiff can ignore such transfer, even if he has notice thereof and a decree or order obtained by him (plaintiff) would be binding on the lies pendens transferee. The lies pendens transferee may however, move the court under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and the court may in exercise of its judicial discretion add him as a proper party by INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011] invoking provisions of Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C., which is an alternative provision to prevent multiplicity of suits. The lies pendens transferee may however, move the court under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and the court may in exercise of its judicial discretion add him as a proper party by INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011] invoking provisions of Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C., which is an alternative provision to prevent multiplicity of suits. (IV) If the lies pendens transferor, may he be the plaintiff or the defendant in the suit, after the transfer of the subject matter of the suit or a part thereof does not prosecute the lies with due diligence, loses interest in the lies, absents himself from the suit or collude with the adversary party, the lies pendens transferee being an assignee and having substantial interest in the property transferred shall have the right to seek leave of the court under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. to implead him as a party to protect / safeguard his interest solely as representative in interest of the transferor. (V) The motion under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. can be made by the lies pendens transferee or by the plaintiff or by any other party or by any person interested. If the lies pendens transferee / assignee opts not to implead himself, he shall be bound by the decree that may be passed against the assignor. (VI) Though the lies pendens transferee is not a necessary party within the scope and meaning of Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and though he may not be impleaded as a party in presence of the transferor himself in the suit by invoking Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C., he being an assignee within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. and the lies pendens transfer being not non est in the eyes of law, and he having substantial interest over the property, as the representative in interest of the transferor and he having the obligation to protect such interest, he is a proper party within the meaning and scope of Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. read with Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and he should ordinarily be impleaded by judicial exercise of discretion under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. to prevent multiplicity of suits. (VII) On being moved under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. or under any other provision by the lies pendens transferee, the Court without being swayed away by the nomenclature shall have to exercise its discretion judicially and may allow the lies pendens transferee to be impleaded as a party to safeguard his interest. Even on a petition under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. the Court in appropriate case can exercise judicial discretion under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C., which is held to be an alternative provision. LINGARAJA MOHANTY-V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] 15. Though not necessary in the context of the discussion, I feel persuaded to mention here that an Order passed or purported to have been passed under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. being not revisable after the amendment of Section 115, C.P.C., such an order, as in the present case can only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But any order passed or purported to have been passed under Order 22 Rule 10, C.P.C. irrespective of the label or nomenclature of the petition is appealable in view of Order 43 Rule 1 (I). 16. The case in hand is, however, totally different. The pendent late purchaser Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party No.9) has not come forward to be impleaded as a party. He does not apprehend any collusion between the defendants and the plaintiff, who is none other than the present petitioner and he also does not apprehend that his interest may not be protected / safeguarded unless he is impleaded as a party. Said Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party No.9) being the assignee had the option to bring himself on record by invoking judicial discretion of the court under Order 22, Rule 10, C.P.C. himself or he could have come on record on the basis of the petition filed before the Court below by the present petitioner. Subrat Kumar Nayak (O.P.9) having not brought himself on record either on his own motion or on the motion by the present petitioner, he cannot take the plea subsequently to the effect that the decree in the suit is not binding on him. It is settled law that the decree against the assignor binds the assignee (See Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Government of Orissa Vs. M/s Ashok Transport Agency and others. It is settled law that the decree against the assignor binds the assignee (See Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. and Government of Orissa Vs. M/s Ashok Transport Agency and others. It is also settled that a lies pendens purchaser is only the representation-in-interest of the lies pendens transferor and the decree against the transferor binds the transferee. In view of such position of law and in view of such fact, I do not find any justification to allow the motion of the petitioner for impleading Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9), the lies pendens purchaser as a party at the behest of the plaintiff- petitioner, as said Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) having not impleaded himself as party in spite of opportunity, cannot subsequently take the plea that the decree is not binding on him. He cannot also institute a separate suit, in view of the discussion supra, on the grounds discussed in Dhurandhar Prasad Singh's Case. The court below in view of such facts cannot be held to have exercised its judicial discretion improperly and it cannot be said that learned court below did not follow the decisions cited before it. 17. The first contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner having failed the next contention which remains to be considered is to the effect that non-impleading Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) may lead to multiplicity of suits. This Court in the case of Panjum Bibi ' Ramjan Bibi INDIAN LAW REPORTS, CUTTACK SERIES [2011] and 7 others v. Najma Alim and another; 2008(H) OLR 747 has held that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation cannot be the sole criteria for deciding an application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. and further the discussion supra shows that Subrat Kumar Nayak (opp. party no.9) in view of the facts and circumstances of the case has already owned the risk of binding himself to the decree in the suit. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Learned Court below is directed to conclude the suit as expeditiously as possible as the suit is a year-old one. Final Result : Dismissed