SANJAY KAROL, CJ.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This application has been preferred praying inter alia for the following relief/s:— “For quashing the order dated 21.8.2018 in T.S. No.106/92, by learned Munsif 1st, Siwan whereby an application to plaintiff dated 1.7.2017 U/o 10(2) for impleading the necessary parties in view of the event taken place over the land in dispute and the same has been rejected vide order dated 21.08.2018 on a very mechanical manner and also failed to appreciate that the suit is in its initial stage and issue has yet to be framed has taken note in the order impugned itself.” 3. Having perused the order dated 21st of August, 2018, whereby the plaintiff’s application dated 17.7.2017, filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. stands rejected, this Court is of the considered view that the court below committed a grave error in rejecting the application, leading the order passed to the perverse and unreasonable. The plaintiff is dominous litis and it is for him to choose as to who ought to be a party respondent. 4. In the instant case, from the record it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff has been delaying the proceedings in any manner. Also, what is important is that the party sought to be impleaded i.e. the Executive Officer, Siwan Nagar Parishad and Nagar Sabhapati, Siwan Nagar Parishad are necessary for the adjudication of the lis inter se the parties. Rights in the property and its nature are to be determined. As such, such respondents are necessary and proper parties. 5. Hence, the impugned order dated 21.8.2018 in T.S. No.106/92, by learned Munsif 1st, Siwan is quashed and set aside with the application being allowed and the party referred to (supra) allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent.