M.M. Kumar; C.J.:- Caveat is discharged. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (IA no. 682/2014), permitting applicant-Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh to join as party respondent. The short order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:- Heard and considered. It is not denied that herein applicant, Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh, is the complainant in the complaint leading to impugned enquiry report. The report has been challenged on the ground among others of mala fide and extraneous consideration on the part of applicant. It being so applicant is necessary party to the lis. Application allowed. Applicant impleaded as party respondent No. 11. Registry to effect corresponding change in the cause title of the writ petition. Disposed of. List main matter in the week commencing 28th of April, 2014. Meanwhile, reply. Interim direction to continue. 3. Mr. Sofi learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the prayer made in the writ petition would show that no relief has been claimed by the appellant against the respondent. He has drawn our attention to the prayer clause where appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus has been sought for quashing the enquiry report (Annexure A) and the consequential communication dated 10.12.2013. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and ors v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and ors, AIR 2012 SC 2925 and argued that general principle laid down in paragraph 36 of the judgment would not permit the impleadment of the added respondent. According to the learned counsel, a proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues. Mr. Sofi has also placed reliance on some other judgments which are not relevant to the issue raised in this appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that respondent-Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh is a necessary and proper party because in paragraph 10(m) of the writ petition it has been specifically alleged by the appellant that the respondent filed a complaint which is patently malafide and based on extraneous considerations. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that respondent-Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh is a necessary and proper party because in paragraph 10(m) of the writ petition it has been specifically alleged by the appellant that the respondent filed a complaint which is patently malafide and based on extraneous considerations. There are further allegations that the Headmaster of the school issued work order in favour of respondent- Manzoor Ahmad Shiekh, Sarpanch to complete the work within three months and has released an amount of Rs. 8.30 lacs in his favour for construction of the school building. The aforesaid factual position could not be successfully disputed. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that learned Writ Court committed any error of jurisdiction warranting admission of the appeal. 5. In the case of Vidur Impex and Traders (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 36.3 has laid down the following proposition:-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. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid para would show that the presence of the respondent would enable the Court to effectively and properly adjudicate upon those matters and issues although he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made. Therefore, the respondent has to be regarded at least as a proper party. 7. In view of the above this appeal fails and the same is dismissed alongwith connected application. __