ORDER : Kuldip Singh, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.9.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Nurpur in CMA in C.S. No.22 of 2009, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. 2. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have filed a suit for declaration etc. against respondent No.9 that they are owners in possession to the extent of the share, a copy of the plaint has been placed on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that in the plaint no averment has been made against petitioner nor any relief has been claimed against Municipal Council, Nurpur. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that relief prayed in the suit is directly against the petitioner as the property in question is in possession of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for impleadment which has been dismissed by learned trial Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents No.1 to 8 have cleverly filed suit against the respondent No.9 by not impleading petitioner as defendant in the suit, even though the suit property is in possession of the petitioner. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 8 have opted to file suit against respondent No.9 and not against petitioner. The decree, if any, passed in the suit will be binding between respondents No.1 to 8 and respondent No.9 and not against petitioner. The respondents No.1 to 8 who are the plaintiffs cannot be forced to implead a party whom they do not want a party in the suit, moreover when on the basis of the averments in the plaint the said party is not otherwise is necessary party. The Court below has rightly appreciated the material on record. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. Resultantly, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed so also the pending application.