JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) North, Kota whereby the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the respondents No.5 to 12 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction wherein they have claimed that in Village Kunhari, near Chambal Bridge there is a particular place known as Bundi Mata Ka Sthan. The said place contains a Shivling and an idol of Hanuman Ji. It was further claimed that an Ashram was built around the said temple. The temple and the Ashram are open to the public at large. Initially, one Dev Narain Das Ji used to do the Pooja Archana at the said place. However, as he grew old, he could not perform the Seva Pooja in the temple. Hence, on 18.9.2004 in presence of many Holy persons and Mahants, he appointed Mahant Shri Morari Babu (Manjhle) as the Mahant of the temple and entrusted the management of the temple to him. Therefore, since 18.9.2004, Mahant Shri Morari Bapu (Manjhle) was performing Seva Pooja in the temple. But on 13.7.2005, the respondent-defendants entered into the Ashram and the temple, and told them that henceforth they would be running the temple and would raise construction. Since rights of the petitioners were threatened, they filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction. 3. During pendency of the suit, respondents No.5 to 12 submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, inter alia, on the ground that twenty seven years ago when Shri Dev Narain Das Ji came to the aforesaid place, he was accompanied by respondent No.5, Udhav Das Ji. According to them, Shri Dev Narain Das Ji had appointed Udhav Das as Mahant to carryout the Seva Pooja. Thus, Udhav Das has been performing the ceremonies in the temple. Respondents No.6 to 12 claimed that they are the residents of the colony and the temple is being looked after by the colony members. In fact, Udhav Das Ji was also performing his duties with the consent of the residents of the colony. By impugned order dated 25.11.2011, the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the respondents No.5 to 12. Hence, this petition before this court. 4. Mr. In fact, Udhav Das Ji was also performing his duties with the consent of the residents of the colony. By impugned order dated 25.11.2011, the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the respondents No.5 to 12. Hence, this petition before this court. 4. Mr. S.C. Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the suit was strictly between the petitioner-plaintiffs, and the respondent-defendants No.1 to 4. It did not adversely affect the interest of the respondents No.5 to 12. Thus, they are neither necessary, nor proper party. Moreover, in a suit for declaration, a third party cannot be impleaded as a party. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Ramesh Chandra v. Mukhtyar Singh & Ors. [AIR 1980 (Rajasthan) 21]. Lastly, that the respondents No.6 to 12 have no locus standi to be impleaded as a party. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Sain, the learned counsel for the respondents No.5 to 12, has contended that in the present matter, a suit for declaration has been filed. In case the suit were decreed in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs, the rights and interests of respondent No.5, Udhav Das, would adversely be affected. Before any adverse order is passed by the court, an opportunity of hearing should be given to Udhav Das. For, according to him, it is he who is performing the ceremonies at the temple. 6. Secondly, the suit has not been filed just by the Trust and by the Mahant. But has also been filed by two persons representing the neighbourhood, namely Nand Kishore Nama, and Trilok Narain Vijay. Therefore, the interest of the persons residing in neighbourhood is equally involved. According to respondents No.6 to 12, Udhav Das has been performing ceremonies in the temple only by their consent. Hence, they, too, are necessary party. 7. Lastly, in case the respondents No.5 to 12 are not impleaded as a party, it will lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Lastly, in case the respondents No.5 to 12 are not impleaded as a party, it will lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by rejecting the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. ORDER1, Rule 10 CPC is as under:- Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.- (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, it satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.-Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 9. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 9. A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that a power has been bestowed upon a court to implead a person as a party where it is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Obviously, in a suit for declaration the issue would arise as to whether the petitioner-plaintiffs are entitled for declaration in their favour. If the declaration were to be made in favour of the petitioner-plaintiffs, it would certainly adversely affect the rights of the respondent No.5, Udhav Das, who also claims to be a Pujari in the temple. Thus, it is essential that the respondent No.5 should also be heard and should be given an opportunity to be heard by the learned trial court. Hence, he is a necessary party to the suit. 10. As far as respondents No.6 to 12 are concerned, the learned trial court could not have overlooked the fact that two of the petitioner-plaintiffs are also members of the same neighbourhood and claim their interest in the suit. Likewise, even respondents No.6 to 12 also claim to be residents of the neighbourhood; they, too, claim that Udhav Das is performing the ceremonies with their consent and on their behest. Thus, obviously, they also have an interest in the final outcome of the suit. 11. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality, or perversity in the impugned order dated 25.11.2011. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******