JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is tenant, has instituted Title Suit No. 414 of 2013 for a decree for declaration that he is entitled to continue in peaceful possession of the tenanted premises till he is removed by virtue of a court''s decree. He has also sought a decree for injunction against the defendant-landlord restraining him from his forceful eviction from the suit premises. He is aggrieved of order dated 09.05.2017 by which his application for impleading the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been rejected. 2. The petitioner has pleaded that he is one of the partners in the partnership firm-Krishi Vikas which deals in sale of fertilizer and other items related to agriculture. The shop rooms are occupied by the partnership firm and the adjoining land belongs to Ram Niwas Sabu and the defendant being the only son of the said Ram Niwas Sabu is receiving rent for the tenanted premises from the plaintiff. In paragraph no. 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that rent for the tenanted premises has not been fixed and consolidated rent as and when demanded by the defendant is paid to him. In paragraph no. 5 of the plaint, the plaintiff, however, claims that the prevalent monthly rent is Rs. 10,000/- which is generally paid in advance through cheque for several months on oral instruction of the defendant and rent till September 2013 has been paid to him. During pendency of the suit a notice was served upon the plaintiff by letter dated 12.01.2015 for illegal construction over government land which was replied by the plaintiff on 17.01.2015. Thereafter, an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the plaintiff for addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation through its administrator. The reason why the plaintiff wants to implead the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is that the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for construction of a building showing the suit land as set-back, according to the plaintiff is illegal. 3. Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the suit the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has issued notice to the plaintiff for vacating the suit premises (Annexure-4). 3. Mr. Praveen Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the suit the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has issued notice to the plaintiff for vacating the suit premises (Annexure-4). On a pointed query from the Court whether the notice issued by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been challenged by the petitioner or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said notice has not been challenged though the notice issued by the Circle Officer has been challenged by filing another writ petition. 4. In a suit, which is primarily a suit for injunction, addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for the aforesaid reason is not necessary. In so far as notice issued to the plaintiff by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is concerned this would constitute a separate cause of action and for that addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in Title Suit No. 414 of 2013 is not the remedy for the petitioner. In fact, if the application for addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is allowed, in the above facts, it would change the cause of action on the basis of which the suit has been instituted. 5. Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another reported in , (1963) AIR SC 786". It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the 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 is a proper party. Under Order-I Rule 10(2) CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either suo-motu or upon an application of a party, struck out the name of any party who has been improperly joined and name of any person who ought to have been joined may be added in the suit. 6. It is not the Ranchi Municipal Corporation which claims that it is either a necessary or a proper party in the suit, rather it is the plaintiff who seeks addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the suit. 6. It is not the Ranchi Municipal Corporation which claims that it is either a necessary or a proper party in the suit, rather it is the plaintiff who seeks addition of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in the suit. Whether the map has been sanctioned in accordance with the rules and the bye-laws or not, is not an issue which requires adjudication in this suit for injunction. Equally true is the fact that the plaintiff who has chosen not to challenge the notice issued from the Ranchi Municipal Corporation cannot seek its impleadment in this suit on a pretension that the said notice may affect him during pendency of the suit. In Title Suit No. 414 of 2013, the issues which are required to be adjudicated are, whether the petitioner, who admits himself as a tenant under the defendant and no rent for the tenanted premises has been fixed, is entitled to seek a decree for declaration that he is entitled to remain in peaceful possession of the tenanted premises or not, and whether the defendant can be injuncted from taking recourse to law to seek ejection of the petitioner from the tenanted premises or not. In fact, impleadment of the Ranchi Municpal Corporation would change the cause of action. In the above facts as pleaded by the parties in the suit, evidently, the Ranchi Municipal Corporation is neither a necessary party nor a proper party and while so, the learned trial judge has rightly dismissed the application under Order I rule 10 (2) CPC. 7. It is stated that the suit which was instituted in the year 2013 is still at the stage of evidence. Accordingly, the trial judge is directed to proceed with trial of the suit keeping in mind the mandate under Order XVII Rule 1(2) CPC and shall not grant adjournment to any of the parties, but for just excuse. 8. In the aforesaid facts, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.