Judgment : Prasenjit Mandal, J. These two applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order as the common question of fact and law is involved therein. For convenience, the is taken up for hearing. This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the Order No.120 dated March 29, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.30 of 2006 thereby allowing an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleadment of a third party as defendant. The plaintiff/petitioner herein instituted the aforesaid suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendants/opposite party nos.1 to 5 before the learned Title Judge and in that suit, a third party filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for impleadment as defendant in the said suit. That application was allowed on contests. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that, by the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. as appearing as Annexure- P/6 at page no.59, Purbakola Gram Kalyan Samity has filed the said application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. contending, inter alia, that this Committee is in possession of the suit property and that the local villagers use that property for the occasion of Holi (Dol Utsab) and the local festivals are held at that place. Latrines, etc. had been constructed on the suit land and so, the said applicant should be added as party. Mr. Debayan Bera, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the so-called Samity is not a registered body and no document has been filed on behalf of the Samity that it possesses the said property. He has also contended that the plaintiff became the owner of the suit property by way of purchase from the intermediary who had retained the said land under the provisions of Section 6(1) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. From the materials on record, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Bera. Thus, I find that the plaintiff has shown prima facie case to proceed with the suit against whom he has sought for relief, i.e., the State of West Bengal and other opposite parties. From the materials on record, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Bera. Thus, I find that the plaintiff has shown prima facie case to proceed with the suit against whom he has sought for relief, i.e., the State of West Bengal and other opposite parties. The applicant having failed to show any paper to show that it possesses the suit property by any authority, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge was not justified at all in allowing the said application. Moreover, the petitioner is in the position of ‘dominus litis’ and he is at liberty to choose against whom he wants to seek reliefs. Mr. Tarun Kumar Jana, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties, by controverting the submission of Mr. Bera, has referred to the decision of Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 976 to show that the purchasers are the necessary parties to the suit and so, such purchasers could be added as necessary party and if they are added as party, the multiplicity of the suits can be avoided. In the instant case, there is no occasion at all that the concerned Samity had purchased any portion of the suit property. So, this decision will not be applicable at all in the instant situation. Accordingly, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has failed to address the issue properly. The applicant is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for adjudication of the matter in dispute. The application should, therefore, be allowed and the impugned order should be set aside. The application is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. appearing as Annexure-P/6 at page no.59 of the application stands rejected. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit from that stage. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. This application is at the instance of the aforesaid Samity/applicant and is filed against the Order No.99 dated April 16, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court, Tamluk in Title Suit No.53 of 2010. On the selfsame reasoning, in my view, the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. filed by the applicant/petitioner herein. On the selfsame reasoning, in my view, the learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. filed by the applicant/petitioner herein. Accordingly, in my view, there is no ground for interference. So, this application stands dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.