ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The controversy sought, but, at the same time, a far reaching consequence because of the reason that in a case where the petitioner preferred a writ petition against the termination of the agreement entered into with it by the Transport Department of Government of Jharkhand for supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates, the petitioner's application for interim relief, I.A. No.2701 of 2012 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 25.9.2012. Against this order dated 25.9.2012, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No.424 of 2012 wherein the petitioner appellant's contention was that his prayer for safeguarding the interest of the petitioner-appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench of this Court (us) observed that from the impugned order it is not clear that such argument was raised, or if raised, that facts and position can be clarified only in review jurisdiction. Observing so, the petitioner-appellant's L.P.A. No.424 of 2012 was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2012. The petitioner-appellant challenged the above said orders dated 25.9.2012 and 8.10.2012 by preferring S.L.P. (Civil) No.31556 of 2012 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.10.2012. In backdrop of these facts, when the respondent issued another N.I.T. Dated 5.9.2012, the petitioner sought to challenge that action of the respondent by filing the I.A. but the respondent, then, decided to cancel the N.I.T. Dated 5.9.2012 and again issued the tender notice dated 8.11.2012. In pursuance of such tender notice dated 8.11.2012, the same contract, which was earlier awarded to the petitioner, was awarded to M/s Rosemarta Technologies Limited. Finding this situation, the petitioner moved an application being I.A. No.359 of 2013 and prayed that said M/s Rosemarta Technologies Limited may be impleaded as party respondent no.4 in the writ petition. The petitioner also sought relief of quashing and setting aside the award of work for supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates to the Respondent No.4. The petitioner, in this I.A. No.359 of 2013, took new pleas appropriate in changed situation so as to challenge the award of the contract to the Respondent party sought to be impleaded. The said application (I.A. No.359 of 2013) was heard by the learned Single Judge and has been dismissed, hence, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh, assisted by Mr. The said application (I.A. No.359 of 2013) was heard by the learned Single Judge and has been dismissed, hence, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the petitioner-appellant. 3. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Jitendra Singh, assisted by Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that the impleading of the party was essential to safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-petitioner. The party sought to be impleaded became necessary party because of the subsequent development and the event occurred during the pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that the petitioner is claiming his right under the contract and is challenging the termination of his contract and he can get the relief only if no other is given such contract. In this case, only because of the cancellation of the contract of the petitioner, the respondent could invite a fresh tender and in response to which, the new party came in picture. If the termination order of the petitioner's contract is set aside, then, naturally, the respondents, who got the contract during pendency of the writ petition may or may not have a right to hearing but he is bound to adversely affected party, therefore, it is essential for the petitioner to implead the new party in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge also committed grave error of law as the learned Single Judge, on assumption, that when the interim order is not passed in favour of the writ petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get the final relief, which is apparent from the findings given by the learned Single Judge in Para 4. In that view of the fact, and if that view is accepted, then also, the new party is necessary party because of the reason that without the presence of the necessary party, who will get the benefit of the contract under the new N.I.T., is required to be heard before holding that in view of the earlier award of the contract, which has been illegally terminated, subsequently awarded contract will not have any effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even in a case where the prayer for interim relief is denied by specific and speaking order, even then, in that situation, the writ petition of the petitioner cannot be dismissed on the ground of refusal of the interim prayer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even in a case where the prayer for interim relief is denied by specific and speaking order, even then, in that situation, the writ petition of the petitioner cannot be dismissed on the ground of refusal of the interim prayer. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Versus Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another reported in A.I.R. (1963) S.C. 786; State of W.B. & Others Versus Shivananda Pathak and Others reported in (1998) 5 S.C.C. 513 ; Ram Kumar Barnwal Versus Ram Lakhan reported in (2007) 5 SCC 660 and Prabodh Verma and Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 . 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Shri Rajesh Shankar, vehemently submitted that the petitioner himself moved the appropriate application for obtaining the interim relief which was not allowed by the learned Single Judge and the petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court also, but he could not get the relief of any interim nature restraining the respondent from floating the fresh tender. In that fact and situation, the respondent floated the tender and in the newly started process for award of contract, the petitioner did not take part in the process. In that situation, the petitioner cannot challenge the subsequently awarded contract to the new party. It is also submitted that the supply and affixing of High Security Registration Plates is required to be completed in the stipulated period of time. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. At the outset, we may observe here that under Order 7 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. is the complete answer to such situation. Where some event occurs during the pendency of the litigation requiring moulding of relief it empowers the Court to take note of the subsequent event and mould the relief accordingly. 7. At the outset, we may observe here that under Order 7 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. is the complete answer to such situation. Where some event occurs during the pendency of the litigation requiring moulding of relief it empowers the Court to take note of the subsequent event and mould the relief accordingly. 7. In addition to above Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is also allows amendment in the pleading so that party may, in the same litigation seek amendment in the pleadings to incorporate the subsequent events affecting or which are necessary for obtaining the relief appropriate to change circumstances with object to avoid requiring of another suit or petition for the relief which can be given in the originally instituted suit or petition. 8. The Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C is also full answer to such situation as is before us. The Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C has two facets; (i) any one who is not impleaded as party, can move application for being impleaded him as party in the suit and (ii) the plaintiff-petitioner or even defendant can also move an application for impleading the third party to the litigation as party in the suit. In spite of Principle of Dominus Litis Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. empowers the Court to implead a party in the suit at its own motion upon finding that other person not impleaded as party in the suit is necessary party for deciding the issue/issues, completely and effectively. The Civil Procedure Code is not made applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time, principles of Civil Procedure Code substantially applies in the writ proceeding also. Otherwise, also, if the procedure is to be laid down by the Court itself, then also, we are of the considered opinion that the above procedure prescribed under Order 7 Rule 7 of the C.P.C as well as in Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C are concerned, they are the provisions of law, which certainly guides the Courts dealing with the matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to do the complete justice by taking note of the subsequent event and by impleading the necessary party in the litigation. 9. 9. In this case, we may recapitulate again that the petitioner was awarded contract and the contract has been terminated and that termination of the contract of the petitioner appellant is under challenge. The petitioner has every right to show that the order of termination of the contract was illegal and he has the right to complete the job under the contract subject to fulfillment of all legal requirements which is required to be fulfilled by the petitioner-appellant. At this stage, when the matter is not taken up for final hearing, there cannot be any presumption that the petitioner-appellant has no case on merit so far as his relief of setting aside of the termination of his contract, and it cannot be held that the petitioner will not get the chance of getting this contract revived in any case. At the interim stage, except the stage where issue of maintainability of suit itself is under consideration, it is not appropriate to decide other issues by presuming that the petitioner may or will not succeed in getting the relief claimed. At the time of considering amendment in pleadings due to subsequent event and also at the time of considering application for adding party, the Court should presume, unless lawful reasons and stage is there, that the petitioner may be entitled to the relief claimed. Therefore, during the pendency of the suit/writ petition any subsequent development which requires moulding of relief, the Court may take cognizance of new event. The subsequent event during pendency of suit/writ and that too happened because of the action of the respondent, than it cannot destroy the right of the plaintiff/petitioner. In present case, if the petitioner, will succeed in showing that the termination order of his contract was illegal and he is also entitled to the job in question, then in that situation, it will be certainly against the interest of the party sought to be impleaded. In that situation, it is essential that such party should be added as party in the petition. The Court can take note of subsequent event upon coming or bringing of subsequent event in its notice, by way of application or otherwise but it may be appropriate normally to incorporate the subsequent event in pleadings so that other party may contest, therefore in such situation, if amendment is sought, normally it is to be allowed. 10. The Court can take note of subsequent event upon coming or bringing of subsequent event in its notice, by way of application or otherwise but it may be appropriate normally to incorporate the subsequent event in pleadings so that other party may contest, therefore in such situation, if amendment is sought, normally it is to be allowed. 10. Furthermore, the rejection of the petitioner's application with observation that “neither there was any interim order preventing the respondent-Government from retendering work and allot it to any competent and eligible agency nor the petitioner prays the challenge to such retender in I.A. No.3301 of 2012 which was dismissed accordingly” is also contrary to law as much as because of the reason that there cannot be a condition precedent of obtaining the interim relief for getting final relief. If any application for interim relief, if would have been filed and if would have been dismissed, even by speaking order refusing the grant of injunction, even then, that cannot be a ground for presuming that the petitioner may not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. So, no interim order restraining the respondent from inviting fresh tender, in the facts, was irrelevant. 11. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, we are of the considered opinion that this L.P.A. deserves to be allowed, and hence allowed. The Impugned Order dated 18.03.2013 is set aside. The petitioner's I.A. No.359 of 2013 is allowed and consequently M/s Rosemarta Technologies Limited respondent No.4 is added as party respondent No.4 and amendment sought is allowed. The petitioner shall submit amended writ petition.