ORDER : Petitioners-applicants have filed the present writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Court of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in O.S. No.255/2011. A copy whereof is at Annexure – H, whereby their application under order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) has been rejected. 2. Respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere in O.S. No.255/2011 for declaration of title to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property and for possession of portion of the suit property (10 guntas) allegedly encroached by the defendants. The suit has been contested by the defendants. The defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 have filed their written statement disputing the plaint averments. . The contentions raised by defendants is that the land originally is a Government Land and defendants are in possession of the same and have constructed huts and are living there. Defendants disputed the grant in favour of plaintiff. They also contended that the revenue records do not support the case of plaintiff. On the contrary, defendants contended that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff is trying to grab the land. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. During pendency of the suit, petitioners herein being the applicants moved an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC to implead themselves as necessary parties to the suit proceedings contending that they are in occupation of suit property, a Bagair Hukum land, which is a piece of government land. The applicants urged that plaintiff has filed a false suit and if the suit is decreed, it would seriously affect their rights. Plaintiff field objections to the said application and contended that the application is filed with an intention to protract the proceedings. Therefore, it was urged that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit proceedings. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. The trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Sri. Plaintiff field objections to the said application and contended that the application is filed with an intention to protract the proceedings. Therefore, it was urged that the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit proceedings. Accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the application. The trial Court has dismissed the application. Hence, petitioners are before this Court. 3. Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners through video conferencing submits that the order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable either in law or on point of facts. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the order is not supported by valid and cogent reasons. The impugned order is passed without proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the trial Court has not exercised the discretion judiciously. If the impugned order is not set aside, injustice would be caused to the applicants. It is submitted that the trial Court failed to note that the applicants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and any judgment passed in the suit in favour of the plaintiff will seriously affect their rights. A further submission is made that the trial Court also failed to note that the suit land is a Government Land and the applicants have been cultivating the same for more than 30 years. Their claim for regularization of their occupation is pending consideration. Hence, the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit proceedings. Lastly, learned counsel urged that the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners have not produced any material in support of their contention is totally erroneous inasmuch as, the question of producing evidence would arise later, after the applicants have been made as parties and at the time of their evidence. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly, prayed for allowing the writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the papers. 5. The controversy involved in the present writ is with regard to impleading of the applicants as necessary parties to the suit proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC deals with striking or adding of parties. 4. I have heard Sri. Vijaya Krishna Bhat M, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the papers. 5. The controversy involved in the present writ is with regard to impleading of the applicants as necessary parties to the suit proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC deals with striking or adding of parties. It is a settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis, has the choice to implead those persons as defendant against whom he vindicates his right. The underlined idea of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is whether the presence of an individual is/was necessary to finally determine the rights of parties or not. A person may be added as a party to the suit, provided it is shown that he has a direct interest in the subject matter and hence, his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. In order to come on record as party to the proceedings, the petitioners herein have to show that their presence is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. But the applicants have not substantiated the same. 6. It is needless to say that in a suit relating to property, a person may be added as a party, provided he should have a direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation. But in the instant case, the applicants except stating that they are in possession of the property and are cultivating the same for more than 30 years, have not shown that they have a direct interest in the subject matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation so as to allow them to come on record. 7. It is further noticed that the applicants have moved the application when the matter was set down for further evidence of defendants. It is needless to observe that when impleadment of a third party would denovo trial, third party should not be impleaded. 7. It is further noticed that the applicants have moved the application when the matter was set down for further evidence of defendants. It is needless to observe that when impleadment of a third party would denovo trial, third party should not be impleaded. The question of addition of parties under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 8. In my view, the trial Court has exercised its power in right perspective. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court so as to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.