JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J.: - Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel as well as Shri Sudhir Kumar Sinha holding brief of Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that initially, the petitioner/Om Prakash filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No.19 of 2012 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), South, Unnao in which an application for temporary injunction has been moved, grantedin favour of the petitioner by order dated 19.01.2012. 3. In addition to the above said facts, Shri Yatindra Singh/opposite party no.4 and Ram Sewak/opposite party no.5 have also filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Original Suit No.259 of 2013 in which they had impleaded one Ramchandra as a respondent. In the said matter, the petitioner moved an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. with the prayer to implead him as a party in the said case before hearing thereby the gata which is bearing nos.280 and 281, but in fact, it bears no.282 and belongs to the petitioner measured by revenue employees. The said application has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 06.07.2013. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision bearing Revision No.63 of 2013 (Om Prakash vs. Yatindra Singh), rejected by order dated 30.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Unnao. 5. In view of the above said facts, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the present writ petition submits that the revisional court had rejected the petitioner's application for impleadment in the revision bearing Revision No.63 of 2013 filed because the petitioner is a necessary party. In the said matter, plaintiffs are claiming their title in respect of plots which are recorded as gata nos.280 and 281, but in fact, it bears gata no.282 which belongs to the petitioner measured by the revenue employees. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. In the said matter, plaintiffs are claiming their title in respect of plots which are recorded as gata nos.280 and 281, but in fact, it bears gata no.282 which belongs to the petitioner measured by the revenue employees. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 8. Before adjudicating and deciding the controversy involved in the present case, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) C.P.C., reads as under : - "Court may stirke 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. " 9. From the perusal of order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, it covers two types of of cases: - (a) of a party who ought to have been joined but not joined and is a necessary party, and (b) of a party without whose presence the question involved in the case cannot be completely decided. 10. The former is called a necessary party and the latter a proper party. Sub-R. (2) of O.1, R.10, therefore, is attracted when the question is covered by one of the above. A party seeking such a joinder as a proper party will have to prima facie establish that such a party has interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and as such should be before the Court. 11. The simple test in such controversy would be as to whether the presence of such a party is appropriate in view of the subject-matter in adjudication. If the answer be in the affirmative, joinder can be permitted. By reason of direct interest in the subject-matter or even by reason of eventual reliefs sought, such a test would be answered. Power being there, it is all a matter of appreciation of the controversy in issue and its possible ramifications. 12. If the answer be in the affirmative, joinder can be permitted. By reason of direct interest in the subject-matter or even by reason of eventual reliefs sought, such a test would be answered. Power being there, it is all a matter of appreciation of the controversy in issue and its possible ramifications. 12. O. 1, R. 10 (2), C.P. Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court to deal with any such situation which may result in prejudicing the interest of affected party if not impleaded in the suit and where the impleadment of the said party is necessary and vital for the decision of the suit. It is true that the discretion has to be exercised judicially but at the same time the concerned civil or appellate court where the suit on appeal is pending has also to take into consideration that the party which is necessary to be impleaded will be put to a greater difficulty if not impleaded by the plaintiff who may have ulterior motives of not impleading such party and if the decision is given which may affect the interest of the said party greater prejudice would be caused to the said party as a result of not impleading while no prejudice or loss would be caused to the plaintiff because he will have full opportunity to defend his rights and interest as against aggrieved party who has been impleaded as a party to the suit. 13. The important aspect which should be looked into by the Civil Courts while deciding the applications under O.1, R.10(2), C.P. Code is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also conflicting decisions being passed in different suits which will be safeguarded as a result of allowing necessary party to be impleaded in the suit (See Baijnath v. Ganga Devi A.I.R. 1998 Raj. 125). 14. The expression "to settle all questions involved" used in O.1, R.10(2), is susceptive of liberal and wide interpretation so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject-matter thereof. 15. 125). 14. The expression "to settle all questions involved" used in O.1, R.10(2), is susceptive of liberal and wide interpretation so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject-matter thereof. 15. The Parliament in its wisdom while framing this rule must have thought that all the material questions common to the parties to the suit and to the third parties should be tried once for all and the Court is clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result with judicious discretion to add parties, including third parties (See Abdul Jaleel v. Aishabi A.I.R. 1992 Karn. 380). 16. The word "At any stage" in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC means that there is no requirement of law that an application for addition of a party as defendant must be made at any particular stage of the trial though in a given case delay in moving an application might be one of the considerations for the decision (See. Gurmauj Saran v. Joyce C. Salim A.I.R. 1990 Del. 13 (D.B.). 17. The use of the expression "at any stage of proceedings" in O.1, R.10(2) shows that the power vested in the Court under it can be exercised only when the proceedings before it are alive and still pending. Once the adjudication itself of all the disputes in the case is over, this provision cannot be made use of by any party (See Sardar Ali Khan v. Special Deputy Collector A.I.R. 1973 Andh. Pra. 298 (D.B.). 18. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., the power to add a party to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of a person may be affected if he is not added as a party. Such right, however, will include necessarily an enforceable legal right. 19. O.1, R.10(2) empowers the Court to implead any person as party suo motu, 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 to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. 19. O.1, R.10(2) empowers the Court to implead any person as party suo motu, 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 to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. True, the plaintiff is dominus litis, but a Court has to guard against the obtaining of a collusive decree against the real owner or interested person without impeading him as a party and to see that such a decree does not become final affecting vitally the rights of such person. Therefore, to avoid such a situation and also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, a Court should permit such a person to be added as a party (See Kamta Prasad v. Vidyawati A.I.R. 1994 Madh. Pra. 181). 20. In the case of Savinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 539 , Hon'ble the Apex Court held as under: - "It would, therefore, be clear that the defendants in the suit were prohibited by operation of Section 52 to deal with the property and could not transfer or otherwise deal with it in any way affecting the rights of the appellant except with the order or authority of the Court. Admittedly, the authority or order of the Court had not been obtained for alienation of those properties. Therefore, the alienation obviously would be hit by the doctrine of lie pendens by operation of Section 52. Under these circumstances, the respondents cannot be considered to be either necessary or proper parties to the suit." 21. In the case of Vidur Impex and traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others, 2012 (8) SCC 384 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court after considering the various law on the point under consideration and after placing reliance on the judgment of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj, 2010 (8) SCC 1 and Bibi Zubaida Khatoon Vs. Nabi Hassan Saheb, 2004 (1) SCC 191 Hon'ble the Supreme Court, has considered the correctness of the High Court's order, which declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the applications filed by the appellant for impleadment as party to the cross suits of which one was filed for redemption of mortgage and the other was filed for specific performance of the agreement for sale. While dismissing the appeal, Hon'ble the Supreme Court after taking into consideration the judgments in the case of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dalip Singh (Supra) and Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University (2001) 6 SCC 534 , held as under: - "41.Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are: "41.1. The Court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. 41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the Court. 41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. 41.4. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court does not have the jurisdiction to order his impleadment against the wishes of the plaintiff. 41.5. In a suit for specific performance, the Court can order impleadment of a purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files application for being joined as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." 22. 41.6. However, if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the suit property in violation of the restraint order passed by the Court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court will be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment." 22. Recently in the case of Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.Pvt. Ltd. & Others, 2013 (2) JCLR 56 (SC), after considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as well as Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act and Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had examined the question that whether a transferee pendelite could in a suit for specific performance, be added as a party defendant and, if so, on what terms, held as under (relevant portion): - "1) The appellant is not a bona fide purchaser and is, therefore, not protected against specific performance of the contract between the plaintiffs and the owner defendants in the suit. 2.The transfer in favour of the appellant pendente lite is effective in transferring title to the appellant but such title shall remain subservient to the rights of the plaintiff in the suit and subject to any direction which the Court may eventually pass therein. (3) Since the appellant has purchased the entire estate that forms the subject matter of the suit, the appellant is entitled to be added as a party defendant to the suit. 4. The appellant shall as a result of his addition raise and pursue only such defenses as were available and taken by the original defendants and none other." 23. In view of the above said proposition of law on the point in issue and taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent injunction arising out of gata no.282 in which an interim injunction has already been granted by the trial court as well as the finding given by the courts below regarding rejecting the petitioner's application for impleadment in the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, under challenge in the present writ petition. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.