JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 23.6.2017, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nahan, District Sirmaur in CMP No. 13516 of 2017, titled as Geeta Ram Vs. Baljeet Singh, whereby an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC by the petitioner praying therein that he may be impleaded as party defendant in the suit has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under:- Respondent No.1, Baljeet Singh alias Gama, has filed a suit against respondent No.2, Kesho Ram, praying for decree of permanent injunction qua the suit land on the ground that he along with other co-sharers, namely, Sh. Gita Ram (present petitioner) and Sh. Nathu Ram are co-owner in possession of the suit land and that the suit was being filed for the benefit of other co-sharers including the present petitioner and that defendant who was a stranger to the suit land was trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff by causing interference in his peaceful possession and an earlier suit filed by petitioner against the plaintiff stood decreed in favour of the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC stating therein that part of the suit land stood sold by plaintiff, Baljeet Singh, to him and he (Baljeet Singh) was left with no share or possession over the suit land. Though after the death of one Smt. Shiv Devi, plaintiff (Baljeet Singh) along with his brother Sh. Nathu Ram had succeeded to her estate, but plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The pleadings in the suit filed by Baljeet Singh were false and incorrect and to negate the claim of the plaintiff, it was necessary to implead the petitioner as party defendant. This application has been rejected by learned Court below vide impugned order. Learned Court has held that as no relief was claimed against the petitioner, therefore, he was not a necessary party. It held that as the suit was neither for declaration nor for possession, therefore, there was no cause of action against Geeta Ram, i.e., the petitioner to be impleaded as a party defendant as Geeta Ram was neither necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the case. 4. It held that as the suit was neither for declaration nor for possession, therefore, there was no cause of action against Geeta Ram, i.e., the petitioner to be impleaded as a party defendant as Geeta Ram was neither necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the case. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order as well as record of the case, in my considered view, the order passed by learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, inter alia, provides that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party, on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just order, name of any party who ought to have been joined to the plaintiff or defendant or whose presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 6. In the present case suit filed by respondent, Baljeet Singh, is allegedly on the pleadings that he along with his co-sharers which included the present petitioner is coowner in possession of the suit land. It is mentioned in the plaint that the suit is being filed for the benefit of other co-sharers also including petitioner Geeta Ram. It is further mentioned in the plaint that other co-sharers, namely Geeta Ram (petitioner) and Nathu Ram could not join the plaintiff for various reasons and are at liberty to join the suit as and when they so desire. It is not spelt out in the plaint as to what were those reasons due to which, other co-sharers including Geeta Ram could not join the plaintiff in filing the suit. 7. Be that as it may, as the plaintiff has himself stated in para 1 of the plaint that other co-sharers including petitioner Geeta Ram are at liberty to join the suit as and when they so desire, it is not understood as to how the plaintiff could have had opposed an application filed for his impleadment as a party defendant by the petitioner. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by learned Court below. This extremely important aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by learned Court below. Learned Court below has also erred in not appreciating that it was not so very innocuous an act that petitioner was not initially impleaded as a party in the suit. It appears that this was purposely done by the plaintiff, as is apparent from the averments made in the application by the petitioner filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, perusal of which demonstrates that there is a dispute between the petitioner and the plaintiff qua the suit land. The findings returned by learned Court below that as plaintiff was not seeking either declaration or possession, no cause had arisen against Geeta Ram are not sustainable in law because learned Court below has erred in not appreciating that any finding returned in favour of the plaintiff would have had adversely affected the petitioner, as admittedly there is a dispute between the parties, i.e., the petitioner and the plaintiff qua the suit land. Petitioner had clearly mentioned in the application that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff without impleding him as a party, to achieve his illegal objects. 8. In these circumstances, in my considered view, petitioner was a necessary party and his impleadment as such was in fact necessary for appropriate adjudication of the lis before the learned trial Court. Learned trial Court has also erred in not appreciating that had the application filed by the petitioner been allowed, no prejudice would have been caused to the plaintiff and the impleadment of the petitioner would have assist learned Court below in the adjudication of the dispute before it. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 23.6.2017 is ordered to be set aside and the petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as defendant in the suit. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.