ORDER 1. Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel, Mr. Prabhat Bharti, A.C. to G.P.23 on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2. Since only respondent No.1 and 2 are interest in this case, no notice is issued to respondent No.3 and 4. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 23.02.20121 passed by the learned Sub Judge IIIrd Gaya in title suit No.51 of 1998 whereby the application filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the State of Bihar and the Collector, Gaya was allowed. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that initially the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and injunction over the suit property which was decreed by the trial Court. The trial Court decreed the suit. The original defendant who are respondent No.3 and 4 in this writ application had filed title appeal before lower appellate Court being title appeal No.8 of 2004/7 of 2004. The lower appellate Court after allowing the appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court on a limited question to decide, i.e., the question of limitation. At this stage, the State of Bihar through Collector Gaya filed the application for being added party defendant in the suit which has been allowed by the trial Court without considering the settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel if the State of Bihar is allowed to be added as party then there will be denovo trial of the suit again. Moreover plaintiff being the dominus litis cannot be forced to fight the litigation against a person against whom the plaintiff is not claiming any relief. Moreover the State of Bihar had filed title suit No.134 of 2004 for declaration that the decree passed in title suit No.51 of 1998 is fraudulent and collusive on the ground that in fact the suit property was acquired by the State of Bihar in a proceeding initiated under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling, area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The said title suit was dismissed for non-payment of Court fee in the year 2005. The said title suit was dismissed for non-payment of Court fee in the year 2005. The plaintiff, i.e., State of Bihar did not file the required Court fee, therefore, it will amount to rejection of the plaint according to the Provision as contained in Order 7 Rule 11 Clause ‘C’ C.P.C. and according to Section 2 sub Section 2, it is a decree. The same defence is being sought to be introduced by the State of Bihar respondent in this suit, and therefore, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 sub Rule 2 C.P.C. has been filed by the State of Bihar. According to the learned counsel, the deemed decree, i.e., rejection of plaint in title suit No.341 of 2004 will operate res judicata. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon A.I.R. 1997 SC 257 Anokhe Lal Vs. Radhamohan Bansal. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. recording a finding that the State of Bihar is necessary party, therefore, the order passed by the Court below cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is admitted fact that the State of Bihar filed title suit No.134 of 2004. It is also admitted fact for non-depositing of the required Court fee, suit was dismissed, i.e., plaint has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause ‘C’ of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, in view of the Section 2 sub Section 2 definition of ‘Decree’ the order passed in title suit No.134 of 2004 is a decree. So far exercise of jurisdiction under Order 1 Rule 10 sub Rule 2 is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anokhelal Vs. RadhaMohan Bansal A.I.R. 1997 SC 257 has held that Even otherwise, the Court should have been very circumspect in dealing with the application of a third party seeking leave to become party in the suit, when the plaintiff, who is the dominus litis of the suit, is opposed to it. If the consequence of such addition would involve a de novo trial, the Court should normally have disallowed the application. If the consequence of such addition would involve a de novo trial, the Court should normally have disallowed the application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the decision of the Privy Counsel in the case of Naba Kumar Hazra v. Radhashyam Mahish, AIR 1931 PC 229 ) 6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotel Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (7) S.C.C. 417 has held that the general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis may choose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sought a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently a person who is not a party has no right to be impleade against the wish of the plaintiff. 7. In the case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal 2005 (6) S.C.C. 733 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the provision as contained in Order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. has held that ‘from a plain reading of expression “all the questions involved in the suit” used in Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., it is abundantly clear that the Legislature clearly meant that only the controversies raised as between the parties to the litigation must be gone into, that is to say, controversies with regard to the right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not the controversies which may arise between the plaintiffs or the defendants intersee or question between the parties to the suit and third party.’ 8. In the present case as has been stated above the State of Bihar is third party so far the present suit is concerned, if the application is allowed then there will be de novo trial. Further the suit filed by the State of Bihar on the same ground has already been dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 Clause ‘C’ C.P.C. which is a decree within the meaning of the said term according to Section 2(2) C.P.C. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the settled provision of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested init by law. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the settled provision of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my opinion, the Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested init by law. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. Thus, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.2.2012 passed in title suit No.51 of 1998 is set aside.