JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J. 1. The order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division-II Manipur East in Judl. Misc. Case No. 67 of 2008 arising out of OS No. 12 of 2006 is the subject matter of challenge in this Revision. Defendant No. 1 has filed this Revision against the said order in which its application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the said Code praying for a direction to the plaintiffs to add State of Manipur as defendant in the suit, has been rejected. 2. The case of the plaintiff-respondents, in brief, is that they are the owners in possession of the homestead land described in Schedule 'A', Schedule 'B' and Schedule 'C' of the plaint having inherited the same from their ancestors late Maharaj Bhodhchandra Singh. It is alleged by the plaintiff respondents that defendant No. 1, petitioner before this Court, attempted to trespass into the suit land on 30.6.2006. The defendant No. 1 petitioner is in possession of the land on the eastern boundary of the suit land. He along with defendant No. 2 and some other persons again entered into the suit land on 20.9.2006 and asked the plaintiffs and their people to leave the suit land so that they could construct certain structure thereon. Such conduct of the defendants was protested by the plaintiffs and their agents as a result of which the defendants and their agents left the land but threatened the plaintiff respondents to dispossess them. Therefore, the suit was filed to permanently injunct the defendant petitioner from entering upon the suit land. 3. The defendant No. 1 petitioner contested the suit. While denying the allegations made in the plaint, it was contended by the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit land. It was the case of the defendant No. 1 petitioner that a plot of land measuring 1.517 acres under C.S. Dag Nos. 1423/4436 was given on lease by the Govt. of Manipur to it by a registered Lease Deed dt. 20.11.1986 and in terms of the boundary described in the lease deed, the suit land is part and parcel of the lease hold land and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land. 4. 1423/4436 was given on lease by the Govt. of Manipur to it by a registered Lease Deed dt. 20.11.1986 and in terms of the boundary described in the lease deed, the suit land is part and parcel of the lease hold land and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over the suit land. 4. Since the State of Manipur was not a party in the suit, the defendant No. 1 petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10read with Sect. 151 of the CPC for a direction to the plaintiffs to implead the State of Manipur as a defendant. The said application having been rejected in the impugned order, this Revision has been filed. 5. Shri Ng. Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the suit land is part and parcel of the land given on lease by the State of Manipur in favour of the petitioner and in absence of the State of Manipur, the suit cannot be properly adjudicated and therefore an application was filed to implead the State of Manipur as a defendant in the suit. According to the learned counsel the State of Manipur is a necessary party in the suit and therefore the learned Civil Judge could not have rejected the application for impleading the State of Manipur as a defendant. 6. Mr. Y. Daljeet, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the suit is only for a permanent injunction and no relief has been claimed against the State of Manipur. It was, therefore, not necessary to implead the State of Manipur as a defendant in the suit. It was further contended that since defendant No. 1 claims to be in possession of the suit land by virtue of the lease deed, it is for the defendant No. 1 to prove such lease and he cannot take help of the State to establish its claim. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versuis Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in : AIR 2012 SC 2925 . In the said reported case the suit was for specific performance of contract. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Versuis Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. reported in : AIR 2012 SC 2925 . In the said reported case the suit was for specific performance of contract. The question raised before the Court was as to whether it was necessary to implead the transferee pendente lite or not. While deciding the issue, Court observed that 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. 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. Relying on the above decision, it was contended by the learned counsel that the State of Manipur having granted the lease in respect of the suit land in favour of the petitioner, it is a necessary party and in absence of State of Manipur, no effective decree can be passed by the Court. Learned counsel also relied upon two other decisions which are not relevant for the purpose of the present case. 8. In reply to the above decision of the Apex Court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the suit being for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from entering upon the suit land and no relief having been claimed against the State of Manipur, it is not necessary to implead State of Manipur as a defendant. 9. Undisputedly, the suit is one for permanent injunction against the defendants and no relief has been claimed against the State of Manipur. The claim of the petitioner is that it is in possession of the suit land by virtue of the lease granted by the State of Manipur in its favour and therefore the State of Manipur is a necessary party and in absence of State of Manipur as party in the suit, the dispute cannot be effectively decided. The claim of the petitioner is that it is in possession of the suit land by virtue of the lease granted by the State of Manipur in its favour and therefore the State of Manipur is a necessary party and in absence of State of Manipur as party in the suit, the dispute cannot be effectively decided. I am unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner considering the fact that the lease granted by the State of Manipur in favour of the petitioner is a registered deed of lease. The area covered under the lease with boundary has been indicated in the lease deed. Simple demarcation of the land shall solve the purpose of finding out as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land claimed by the plaintiff or not. Moreover, the petitioner, who is defendant No. 1 in the suit, wants to get support from the State of Manipur to establish that the lease had been granted in its favour by the State of Manipur. In order to prove the said fact, the defendant No. 1 petitioner can always summon the record from the concerned Department to prove that in respect of the suit land a lease has been granted by the State in its favour. Therefore, there is no necessity of impleading the State of Manipur as a defendant in the suit. In absence of State of Manipur the suit can be effectively decided. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.