JUDGMENT B.K. MISRA, J. 1. In this writ petition the order passed by, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in Civil Suit No.3 of 2003 dated 8.7.2011 in allowing the prayer of the 3rd party intervener petitioners under Order No.1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) under Annexure-5, is under challenge. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. It is seen that the Satsangha Kendra at Baramunda instituted Civil Suit No.3 of 2003 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar against the State of Orissa represented through the Secretary, Forest Department, Bhubaneswar and the Secretary, General Administration Department praying therein for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over the suit property as well as for permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from interfering in their possession of the suit property in any manner and in demolition of the house and boundary wall and felling of trees which stands on the suit land. According to the plaintiff's case the suit land was lying fallow which the plaintiff institution reclaimed and constructed a prayer hall and planted valuable trees like coconut, jack fruit and erected stone boundary wall in the year 1960 only with a view to propagate religious ideology and to teach the people to lead righteous life. It holds the annual function also on 25th December each year over the suit land. Such possession of the suit property by the plaintiff is known to the defendants and the public at large and by remaining in such possession uninterruptedly and continuously the plaintiff has perfected its title over the same by remaining in possession for more than the statutory period and thus have acquired adverse possession over the same., It is alleged that the defendants having no manner of right, title and possession over the suit property and taking advantage of the wrong recording of the suit land in their name in the record of right, threatened the plaintiff to vacate the suit land and tried to forcibly dispossess by demolishing the house, compound wall and also by felling trees. 3. 3. The 3rd party interveners filed a petition under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. praying therein to be impleaded as defendants claiming that they are the allottees under the Social Housing Scheme at Baramunda and the suit land has been reserved as an open space for future development under the Social Housing Scheme, Baramunda as per the layout plan and thus when they have subsisting interest over the suit land the suit should be tried in their presence. 4. Perused the certified copy of the impugned order at Annexure-5. Order 1 Rule 10 says that a person who has direct interest in the subject matter of litigation can be impleaded as party. A person is said to be legally interested in the question involved in the suit, only if he can show that it may lead to a result that may affect him legally, i.e., curtailing his legal rights. It is true that the rule empowering the Court to implead a person is wide. The doctrine of "dominos litis" is subject to the power of the Court under Order, 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. The Court should bear in mind that it is the plaintiff who is architect of his plaint and he has a right to choose his own adversary against whom he seeks relief. In the instant case, the plaint averments shows that the plaintiff Institution has established a prayer hall over the suit land which was fallow in the year 1960 and they planted different trees over the same and enclosed the area by a boundary wall having one entrance gate. 5. In the written statement the defendant No.2, namely, the State of Orissa averred that the suit schedule property belongs to the Government which was handed over to the Orissa State Housing Board for construction of residential house under the Social Housing Scheme at Baramunda for allotment of the same to the individuals which the plaintiff grabbed. It is the further plea of the defendant No.2 that the record of right stands in the name of the Government and the suit land in possession of the General Administration Department of the State of Orissa. 6. At the cost of repetition, I may mention here that the plaintiff has filed the suit impleading the Secretary, G.A. Department as defendant No.2 and the Secretary, Forest Department as Defendant No.1. 6. At the cost of repetition, I may mention here that the plaintiff has filed the suit impleading the Secretary, G.A. Department as defendant No.2 and the Secretary, Forest Department as Defendant No.1. There is no material on record to show as to how the 3rd Party intervenors have any interest over the suit land which belongs to the Government save and except claiming that they used to perform marriage ceremonies and boys used to play there. Without delving into the merits of the case suffice is to say that the 3rd party interveners have no right to be impleaded as defendant in the suit as not a single scrap of paper has been produced in bolstering their claim. I do not find any material on record to show that the Court cannot pass any effective decree if the 3rd party intervenors are not impleaded as defendants. There is no material to show that the 3rd party interveners are necessary parties having direct interest in the suit property. This Court in a decision as reported in 2008 (II) OLR 747 , Panjum Bibi @ Ramjan Bibi and 7 others vs. Najma Alim and another while analyzing the provision under Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. observed as follows: – "Avoidance of multiplicity of litigation cannot be a sole criterion for deciding the application generally a party cannot be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff, who is the master of his suit and he is not seeking any relief against such a party." 7. The learned Trial Court has not at all discussed in the impugned order as to how the impletion of the 3rd party interveners would help the Court in proper adjudication of the suit. The impugned order is very cryptic and a non-speaking order. I am constrained to observe that the learned Court below did not apply its judicial mind and conscience while deciding the matter with regard to impletion of 3rd party intervener which definitely has caused prejudice to the plaintiff. 8. Accordingly, from the aforesaid discussion of the materials on record and analyzing the position of law, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order at Annexure-5. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-5 stands set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. 8. Accordingly, from the aforesaid discussion of the materials on record and analyzing the position of law, I have no hesitation to quash the impugned order at Annexure-5. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-5 stands set aside and the writ petition stands allowed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit if pleadings are complete and disposed of the same within a period of six months, if there would be no other impediment. Writ petition allowed. Petition allowed.