JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. This petition assails the order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Puri in Civil Suit No.81 of 2004. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. 2. Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.81 of 2004 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Puri for declaration that he has right, title and interest to perform Mudra Seva Pali in Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri as the successor of late Jagannath Mudra, the order passed in Sadhi Bandha Misc. Case No.4 of 1995 is illegal and inoperative and for permanent injunction impleading the opposite parties 2 to 6 as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that Artatrana Mudra is the common ancestor of the parties. He had three sons, namely, Loknath, Chintamani and Jagannath. They were performing Mudra Seva in Shree Jagannath Temple. Mudra Seva is heritable and transferable. Pursuant to the order dated 13.5.1980 in Case No.6 of 1979 of the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri-defendant no.5, Jagannath Mudra was performing Mudra Seva. After the death of Lokanath, Chintamani and Jagannath, the plaintiff and defendant nos. 1 to 4 stepped into their shoes. His father Jagannath died on 21.9.1987. Thereafter he applied to defendant no.5 to perform the said Seva, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1995. As per the temple custom, the said permission is known as Sadhi Bandha ceremony. Defendant no.2 filed objection disputing the status of the plaintiff. By order dated 3.12.2003, defendant no.5 rejected the application of the plaintiff. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed. 3. After closure of evidence from both sides, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleadment. It is stated that the petitioner is the elder brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had instituted O.S. No. 216/85 of 1992/1991 in the court of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, Puri in respect of immovable property admitting the petitioner as his brother. The plaintiff has also executed registered power of attorney in his favour on 17.8.1984 admitting the petitioner as his elder brother. He has direct interest in respect of the subject matter of suit and as such a necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff has also executed registered power of attorney in his favour on 17.8.1984 admitting the petitioner as his elder brother. He has direct interest in respect of the subject matter of suit and as such a necessary party to the suit. It is further stated that by suppressing the material facts, the suit has been filed without impleading him as a party. On 31.1.2016 he came to know about the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff filed objection to the same. It is stated that the real name of the intervenor-petitioner is Rama Krushna Panda. He is the son of Dasarathi Panda of Goudabada Sahi. He has been set up by defendant nos. 1 to 3. It is further stated that Jagannath Mudra in his life time treated Rama Krushna Panda as his foster son. While the plaintiff was a minor, his residential house was purchased in his name along with the intervenor. By plying fraud the intervenor mortgaged the entire property in favour of Puri H.T. Cooperative Society Ltd. Thereafter he filed a partition suit, being No.O.S.No.216/85 of 92/91. The suit was compromised. Thereafter he had paid the entire dues of the bank and the said residential property was recorded in his name. It is further stated that the temple administration has recently decided to make census of sevayats of Shree Jagannath Temple for issuance of health card. Some persons inimical to him recorded the names of Rama Krushna Mudra and his family members. Thereafter he filed an application on 21.3.2014 to delete the name of intervenor along with the names of his family members from the list of Mudra Sevak. Accordingly, the temple administration obtained a report from the Commander, Shree Jagannath Temple, who reported that there is no such Mudra Sevak, namely, Rama Krushna Mudra and, accordingly issued notice both the parties. After appearance the petitioner filed an affidavit stating that he is not Rama Krushna Mudra and his name is Rama Krushna Panda. The statement of the intervenor was recorded on 20.8.2014. The intervenor-petitioner stated that his actual name is Rama Krushna Panda although in the ration card, BPL Card, Bank Passbook, his name was recorded as Rama Krushna Mudra son of Jagannath Mudra. He is not a Mudra Sevak although in the census book of Shri Jagannath Temple Administration, his name has been included in the list of Mudra Sevak. The intervenor-petitioner stated that his actual name is Rama Krushna Panda although in the ration card, BPL Card, Bank Passbook, his name was recorded as Rama Krushna Mudra son of Jagannath Mudra. He is not a Mudra Sevak although in the census book of Shri Jagannath Temple Administration, his name has been included in the list of Mudra Sevak. He does not have any objection if his name is deleted from Mudra Sevak list. He further stated the he belongs to Patribadu Sevak and Sabat Seva. In view of the same, the intervenor-petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the suit. The learned trial court rejected the said petition. The instant petition has been filed to lacinate the said order. 3. Heard Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Sr. Advocate for opposite party no.1. Since opposite party no.1-plaintiff lodged the caveat and contested the case, this Court has not issued notices to other opposite parties. 4. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court on consideration of the rival submissions made by the parties came to hold that the existing issues in the suit will be confused in case the intervenor is added as a party as his claim can be better answered in separate suit. Criticizing the order, he further submitted that both the plaintiff and intervenor are claiming Mudra Seva Pali in the Temple of Shree Jagannath through their father late Jagannath Mudra. Though the plaintiff raised objection to the application filed by the intervenor stating that he is the foster child of the father, but in the previous suit, the plaintiff has admitted that the intervenor as his elder brother. The plaintiff has also executed the power of attorney in favour of the invervenor describing him as his brother. The petitioner has been described as the son of late Jagannath Mudra in various contemporaneous public documents whereas the alleged affidavit came to picture only when the plaintiff made an attempt to claim 1/3rd interest in the Mudra Seva Pali. Those sevaks, who have 2/3rd interest in the Mudra Seva Pali, did not oppose the prayer. He further submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the intervenor ought to have been impleaded in the suit. Those sevaks, who have 2/3rd interest in the Mudra Seva Pali, did not oppose the prayer. He further submitted that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the intervenor ought to have been impleaded in the suit. He cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra and Gadasa Guru, (1995) 3 SCC 147 , Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm, AIR 2007 SC 3166 and Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee and others, (1974) 2 SCC 563 . 5. Per contra, Mr.Mohanty, learned Sr. Advocate for opposite party no.1 submitted that the intervenor is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the suit. In view of the same, the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. He cited the decisions in the case of Smt. Styabhama Jalan and another Vs. Murli Manohar Jalan and others, AIR 1977 Patna 243, Sadhu Behera and others Vs. Krishna Chandra Sutar and another, AIR 1985 Orissa 93, Smadh Baba Mauzpuri and another Vs. Sukhdv Puri and other, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 250 and Shri Raj Kumar alias Rajinder Singh Vs. Smt. Bimla Kumari and another, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 303, Anokhe Lal Vs. Radhamohan Bansal and others, AIR 1997 SC 257 and Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 2010 S.C. 3109 . 6. In Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others, AIR 2015 SC 3269 , the apex Court held that judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and jurisdiction under Article 227 is different from jurisdiction under Article 226. 7. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution, the apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Sh. Jai Singh and Others, 2010 AIR SCW 5968 held thus. “xxx xxx xxx Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well recognized principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this Article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with well established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this Article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to 6 exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The High Court cannot lightly or liberally act as an appellate court and re-appreciate the evidence. Generally, it cannot substitute its own conclusions for the conclusions reached by the courts below or the statutory/quasi-judicial tribunals. The power to re-appreciate evidence would only be justified in rare and exceptional situations where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. The exercise of such discretionary power would depend on the peculiar facts of each case, with the sole objective of ensuring that there is no miscarriage of justice. xxx xxx xxx” 8. On the anvil of the decisions cited (supra), the case of the petitioner may be examined. 9. The question does arise whether the petitioner is a necessary party or proper party to the suit ? 10. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. xxx xxx xxx” 8. On the anvil of the decisions cited (supra), the case of the petitioner may be examined. 9. The question does arise whether the petitioner is a necessary party or proper party to the suit ? 10. The distinction between a necessary party and a proper party is well known. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another, AIR 1963 SC 786 , the apex Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. 11. In Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, AIR 1958 SC 886 , the apex Court held that it is firmly established as a result of judicial decisions that in order that a person may be added as a party to a suit, he should have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation whether it raises questions relating to moveable or immoveable property. 12. In Anil Kumar Singh (supra), the apex Court held that since the applicant who sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot be said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be decided. In Sumati Bai and Others (supra), the earlier decision of the apex Court in the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others (2005) 6 SCC 733 that in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property to a stranger or third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit was distinguished. The decision of the Kali Kinkor Ganguly (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 13. Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity) is a well known principle in the administration of justice. In view of the same, this Court has not multiplied the authorities since the ratio in all the decisions is same. 14. Mr. The decision of the Kali Kinkor Ganguly (supra) is distinguishable on facts. 13. Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity) is a well known principle in the administration of justice. In view of the same, this Court has not multiplied the authorities since the ratio in all the decisions is same. 14. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for opposite party no.1 submitted a photostat copy of the statement made by the intervenor before the defendant no.5, which is quoted hereunder:- “My actual name is Ramakrushna Panda, although in my ration card, BPL card, Bank pass book my name is recorded as Ramakrushna Mudra s/o. Jagannath Mudra. In fact I am Rama Krushna Panda s/o-Dasarathi Panda, vill. Goudabada Sahi. I am not a mudra sevak, although in the census book of Sri Jagannath Temple Administration I have been included under the list of Mudra Sevak. I do not have any objection if my name will be deleted from the Mudra list of Sevak. I actually belong to Patri Badu sevak & Sabat Seva. I have also married in a sevak parivar. I am submitting one affidavit to this statement.” 15. In view of the categorical assertion of the petitioner that he is Rama Krushna Panda son of Dasrathi Panda of village Goudabada Sahi, and not a Mudra Sevak and that he belongs to Patri Badu Sevak, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the suit. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner on untenable and unsupportable grounds. Since this Court has considered the matter and concurred with the view of the learned trial court, the submission merits no consideration. 16. There being no perversity or illegality in order dated 15.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Puri in Civil Suit No. 81 of 2004, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Since evidence is closed, the learned trial court is directed to pronounce the judgment by end of April, 2016 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.