By Court : - Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner has moved this writ application for quashing of the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), 1st, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.44 of 2014 whereby and where under the petition filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘the Code’) for impleading one Chandan Sao as defendant no.2 to the suit, has been allowed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunction under Sections 38 and 39 read with Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 with the pleading that father of the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in the shop premise by the father of the defendant-petitioner in the year 1975 and since after the death of his father, the plaintiff has been occupying the said shop premise as described in the schedule of the plaint on payment of rent and has been carrying business in the said shop and never committed any default in rent. Since relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was extremely cordial, the plaintiff requested the landlord-defendant for some necessary repairing and on the assurance of the defendant-landlord, the plaintiff handed over the shop premise to him for repairing but to utter surprise to the plaintiff-respondent, the petitioner after making necessary repairing, handed over the shop in question to some other person and refused to hand over the shop premise to the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff being tenant of the shop had a right to continue in possession of the same till he is evicted from there in accordance with law but by playing fraud in the name of repairing the suit shop he has been dispossessed and some other person has been inducted. Hence, this suit. 3. After appearance, the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement denying all the pleadings of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the shop premises because of his loss in business and there was never any dispute with regard to default in payment of rent. Hence, this suit. 3. After appearance, the defendant-petitioner filed a written statement denying all the pleadings of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the plaintiff had voluntarily vacated the shop premises because of his loss in business and there was never any dispute with regard to default in payment of rent. It was further pleaded that since the plaintiff’s business of running liquor shop was badly affected and the liquor license was allotted to one Paran Mahato and subsequently to one Chandan Sao who is at present in exclusive possession of the shop room which was vacated by the plaintiff and so the claim of the plaintiff of dispossession and of restoration of the possession of the tenanted shop room does not arise at all. 4. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff filed a petition under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code for impleading the newly inducted tenant Chandan Sao as defendant no.2 to avoid the multiplicity of suits on the ground that the landlord-defendant in his pleading has admitted the fact that presently Chandan Sao is in exclusive possession of the shop in question. 5. The defendant-petitioner filed his objection but admitted the induction of Chandan Sao in the suit shop and further stated in the objection petition that the said Chandan Sao is not a necessary party or even proper party and it was well within the power of the landlord to induct any tenant but the presence of the said tenant is not necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit. 6. After hearing both the parties, the court below allowed the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. Hence, this writ. 7. Mr. Ramchander Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned as bad in law, seriously contended that it is the privilege of the landlord to induct any person as tenant and since the plaintiff had himself vacated the suit shop, the mere induction of Chandan Sao subsequently as tenant, cannot be a ground for impleading him as a party in the suit for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties and the court below without appreciating the pleadings of the party erred in allowing the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code. It was also contended that it was a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-landlord from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit shop. So any person, inducted subsequently cannot be a necessary or even proper party and in no case the newly inducted tenant Chandan Sao can be treated as a sub tenant rather he is a legal occupier of the shop in question. 8. I have gone through the order impugned as well as the pleadings of the plaintiff and the written statement filed at the instance of the defendant-petitioner and I find that the petitioner in his written statement has admitted the factum of induction of Chandan Sao in the suit shop. The suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant landlord from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the shop premise by any means and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to restore/redeliver the possession of the shop room to the plaintiff. In view of the admission of the landlord-plaintiff himself that one Chandan Sao has been inducted as a tenant in the shop room, in my opinion, to avoid multiplicity of the suit, the said newly inducted tenant Chandan Sao appears to be a necessary party. The court below has rightly allowed the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C., I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and no plausible ground has been argued by the petitioner to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Hence, this writ application is dismissed. However, considering the nature of the dispute, the court below is directed to expedite the trial after giving proper opportunities to the parties to the suit.