JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr.Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.1.1, Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent no.3-State and Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of respondent no.2. 2. The petitioner, who is the proposed defendant in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970, has challenged the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta on application below Exh.169 dated 19.09.2019, whereby the learned Judge rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short) for impleading the petitioner through its trustees as party defendants in the suit. 3. Short facts leading to the filing of the present petition can be summarized as under: 3.1 As per the submissions of the petitioner, they are the trustees of the trust. The original plaintiff i.e. respondent no.1, on 05.10.1948, entered merger agreement with Governor General of India. As per the agreement, Article 3 of the merger agreement provides that the respondent no.1 – plaintiff shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of the said agreement. The plaintiff was required to furnish to the dominion Government before 31.12.1948, an inventory of all the immovable property, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property. In pursuance to the merger agreement, the plaintiff submitted to the Government of India an inventory of properties which he claimed to be of his private ownership. The plaintiff included the properties, described at Sr.No.20 which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. The Shrine of Shri Arasuri Ambaji situated on Mount- Arasur in Shri Ambaji Town within Danta State. 2. Mount Gabbar 3. All movable and immovable properties dedicated to and bequeathed upon the said Shrine of Shri Ambaji as listed below:- Note. The plaintiff included the properties, described at Sr.No.20 which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. The Shrine of Shri Arasuri Ambaji situated on Mount- Arasur in Shri Ambaji Town within Danta State. 2. Mount Gabbar 3. All movable and immovable properties dedicated to and bequeathed upon the said Shrine of Shri Ambaji as listed below:- Note. All these properties shall be managed by a Trust to be created by Government, His Highness the Maharana will be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees which will include the representatives of the local area and a representatives of the Bombay Government.” 3.2 The trust was created by the Government of Bombay for the management of Ambaji Temple, etc. In August-1951, the plaintiff sent a draft of the trust deed to the Ministry of States. The plaintiff thus accepted the decision of the Government in respect of Ambaji Temple, etc. Thereafter, on 31.05.1953, the said properties were taken over by the Government of Bombay in pursuance of decision of Union Government to treat the said properties as State properties to be managed by a trust and the acceptance of the decision by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the said decision, filed Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953 before the Bombay High Court which was allowed on 23.03.1954. The Union of India, being dissatisfied with the order of the Bombay High Court dated 23.03.1954, filed Civil Appeal No.112 of 1954 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed on 03.12.1957 by setting aside the order dated 23.03.1954 passed by the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953. As per the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Union of India took the possession of the above referred properties including Arasuri temple, etc. During the same period i.e. in the year 1970, the respondent no.1-plaintiff also filed one Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 before this Court seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the Shrine and the properties belonging to it and that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest therein and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. On 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, this Court dismissed Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970. On 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, this Court dismissed Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970. Thereafter, on 15.06.1970, the plaintiff filed present suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970 against the defendants inter alia praying to direct the defendants to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit properties, described in Paragraph-2 of the Schedule- A to the plaint and further direct them to render a true and faithful accounts of all the income, profits, benefits and offerings realized, recovered received and/or derived at the said temple and/or from the said properties; defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amounts that may be ascertained to be due on taking accounts as prayed for in the preceding prayer; all accounts were taken, directions given and order passed for the aforesaid purposes and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. The present petitioner filed an application Exh.169 on 26.02.2018 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleading the petitioner through its trustees as party defendants in Special Civil Suit no.12 of 1970 pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties, by impugned order dated 19.09.2019, rejected the application Exh.169. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order. 4. Heard Ms. Archana R. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Abhishek Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent no.1.1, Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent no.2 and Ms.Megha Chitaliya, learned AGP for the respondent no.3-State. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Trial Court dated 19.09.2019 below Exh.169 rejecting the application is completely illegal and erroneous. It is further submitted that on 31.05.1953, the properties were taken over by the Government of Bombay in pursuance of the merger agreement dated 05.10.1948 executed between Governor General of India and the plaintiff to treat the properties as State properties to be managed by trust and acceptance of the decision by the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the original plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, had filed Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953 before the High Court of Bombay, which was allowed on 23.03.1954. It is further submitted that the original plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, had filed Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953 before the High Court of Bombay, which was allowed on 23.03.1954. It is further submitted that against the said order of the High Court of Bombay, Union of India had filed Civil Appeal No.112 of 1954 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and vide order dated 03.12.1957, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the said Civil Appeal and set aside the order dated 23.03.1954 passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953. It is further submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, action of the Union of India in taking possession of the above properties including Arasuri Temple, etc. is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has attained finality. It is further submitted that the petitioner – trust came to be constituted and registered for managing the subject properties. It is further submitted that the subject properties are recorded in favour of the petitioner – trust in PTR as well as in city survey record. That reliefs sought for by the plaintiff seeking handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit properties, etc. would have direct bearing on the petitioner – trust who is managing, maintaining and in possession of the suit properties. It is further submitted that any order, which may be passed in the suit by the Court, would have direct bearing on the petitioner. It is further submitted that presence of the petitioner is necessary to decide the suit as it is affected party to the proceedings. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had also filed one Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 before this Court seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the Shrine and the properties belonging to it and defendant nos.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest therein and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. It is further submitted that on 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, the aforesaid Special Civil Application was dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that however the petitioner is in possession, managing and maintaining the properties and is necessary and proper affected party to the proceedings, the plaintiff is deliberately and intentionally not impleaded the petitioner through its trustees as party defendants in the suit. It is further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that however the petitioner is in possession, managing and maintaining the properties and is necessary and proper affected party to the proceedings, the plaintiff is deliberately and intentionally not impleaded the petitioner through its trustees as party defendants in the suit. It is further submitted the plaintiff was very well aware that the petitioner -trust is registered to manage the properties and yet, he has not impleaded the petitioner as party in the suit. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that if the petitioner through its trustees is not impleaded as party to the suit, it will adversely affect the interest of the petitioner – trust. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has claimed relief only against the Government of Gujarat and Union of India and hence, the application filed by the petitioner is meritless. It is further submitted that the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is not only against the defendants, but it is also against the petitioner – trust as the properties of which the possession is sought, are in fact in possession, maintained, managed and running in the name of the petitioner – trust and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no relief sought against the present petitioner in the suit. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC in respect of adding parties while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC can be exercised either suo motu or on the application of the plaintiff or the defendant, or on an application of a person, who is not the party to the suit. It is further submitted that the above provisions of law are not properly appreciated by the Trial Court in its true perspective while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself has filed one after another application (Exhs.56 and 117) to stay the suit proceedings, which was reached upto this Court and finally the said relief was rejected by this Court. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself has filed one after another application (Exhs.56 and 117) to stay the suit proceedings, which was reached upto this Court and finally the said relief was rejected by this Court. That the petitioner is a proper party in the suit and in absence of the petitioner, no effective order can be passed, and therefore, presence of the petitioner for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings are absolutely necessary. That for passing an effective decree in the suit, presence of the petitioner is absolutely required for effective adjudication the matter in issue in the suit filed by the plaintiff. That the impugned order is prima facie illegal and contrary to law, and therefore, it is requested by learned advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside the impugned order passed on application below Exh.169. 6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent no.1/plaintiff vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner/proposed party and submitted that the plaintiff is dominus litis and question of jurisdiction of the Court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to add a party, who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and illegal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. It is further submitted that there must be a right to some relief against the petitioner in respect of the controversies involved in the suit and no effective decree can be passed in absence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a third party or stranger, cannot be added in the suit preferred by the plaintiff merely in order to find out, who is in possession of the property or to avoid multiplicity of the suit. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiff against the defendants as it is not necessary to decide the issue. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be impleaded as defendant in the suit filed by the original plaintiff against the defendants as it is not necessary to decide the issue. It is further submitted that the plaintiff cannot be forced to add party against whom he does not want to fight. It is further submitted that the suit proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in the year 1970 and the petitioner was aware about the same and the petitioner never preferred any petition for being impleaded as party respondent in the said suit proceedings. That conduct of the petitioner deserves to be noted and the petition is required to be rejected on this count itself. It is further submitted that after a period of 50 years, the petitioner has preferred an application below Exh.169 before the Trial Court on 19.09.2019. It is further submitted that there are no cogent grounds stated in the application below Exh.169 which can remotely justify the impleadment of the petitioner in the pending suit proceedings. The petitioner had permitted the suit proceedings to continue for a period of more than 50 years and all of a sudden when the suit proceedings are at the fag end of the trial, the petitioner is seeking to jump into the suit proceedings on thoroughly frivolous grounds. It is further submitted that the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party as an effective decree can be passed in its absence and the presence of the third party, the petitioner is not required for the complete and final adjudication of the question involved in the proceedings. It is further submitted that no case is made out by the petitioner for being impleaded as party defendant in the suit proceedings. It is further submitted that application Exh.69 is without merit and is grossly belated and barred by limitation which cannot be allowed. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not claimed any relief in the suit proceedings against the present petitioner which relief(s) are against the Union of India and the Government of Gujarat, and therefore, there is no reason or legal necessity to permit the present petitioner to be impleaded in the suit proceedings before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that effective decree can be passed by the Trial Court in absence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that effective decree can be passed by the Trial Court in absence of the petitioner. That the Trial Court has rightly refused to exercise jurisdiction to implead he petitioner as defendant in the suit proceedings against the wishes of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that controversy between the parties is regarding the action on the part of the respondent – Union of India and the State of Gujarat pertaining to the merger agreement and subsequent action of taking possession of the subject properties from the then his highness Maranana Prithviraj Sinhji of Danta. It is further submitted that the issue in the suit has nothing to do with the present petitioner and the suit can be decided in absence of the present petitioner whose presence is not necessary for the effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. It is further submitted that merely because property has been given to the petitioner, subsequently, after the illegal possession was taken by the Union of India/Government of Gujarat would not be a ground for the petitioner to be impleaded in the suit proceedings and that too after a period of more than 50 years. That illegal taking over the possession by the original defendants in the suit proceedings is under challenge and if the petitioner – trust is presumed to be a subsequent beneficiary of the said property which is subject matter of the suit, the same cannot be a ground for impleadment in the suit proceedings. The Trial Court has rightly exercised the judicial discretion in favour of the plaintiff keeping in mind settled principles of law including a very important and vital aspect pertaining to the conduct of the party seeking to be impleaded in the proceedings. That petitioner has not stated as to how the petitioner’s presence would aid or assist in the suit proceedings since the petitioner is merely claiming to be managing the properties as a trustee with no other powers qua the said properties which the petitioner’s claims are part of its trust. That the impugned order is neither illegal, perverse, capricious or is an error apparent on the face of the record. That the impugned order is neither illegal, perverse, capricious or is an error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner was never party to the merger agreement and for that matter of fact the action of the original defendants i.e. Union of India and the Bombay State against whom the relief(s) have been sought and as a transferee at best, the petitioner has no locus to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, it is requested by learned advocate for the respondent no.1 to dismiss this petition and confirm the order passed by the Trial Court below Exh.169. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the respondent no.1 has relied upon the following judgments: (I) Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others reported in (2020) 13 SCC 773 ; (II) Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018(11) SCC 722 ; (III) Ramgopal and others Vs. Radhesyam Dans (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No,.7648/2018, Rajasthan High Court); (IV) Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tosh Appartments Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 8 SCC 384 ; (V) Nachammal Vs. Lavangammal (MANU/ TN/1756/2006); (VI) Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 733 ; (VII) Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dilip Singh and others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 539 ; 7. Mr.Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent no.2 has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner and he has no objection if the prayer would be granted by this Court impleading the petitioner as a party defendant in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970. 8. Learned AGP for the respondent no.3– State has no objection in allowing this petition and joining the petitioner as a party defendant in the suit. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent no.2 as well as learned AGP for the respondent no.3, it is true that the question of jurisdiction of the Court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct and legal interest in the controversy involved in the suit. A person is legally interested in the answers to the controversies only if he can satisfy the Court that it may lead to a result that will affect him legally. A bare reading of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC would clearly show that the necessary parties in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale are the parties to the contract or if they are dead, their legal representatives as also a person who had purchased the contracted property from the vendor. In equity as well as in law, the contract constitutes rights and also regulates the liabilities of the parties. A purchaser is a necessary party as he would be affected if he had purchased with or without notice of the contract, but a person who claims adversely to the claim of a vendor is, however, not a necessary party. Two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. Tests are -(1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved in the proceedings; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. From the record placed before the Court, it appears that the plaintiff, on 05.10.1948, entered merger agreement with Governor General of India. As per the agreement, Article 3 of the merger agreement provides that the plaintiff shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as distinct from State properties) belonging to him on the date of the said agreement. The plaintiff was required to furnish to the dominion Government before 31.12.1948, an inventory of all the immovable property, securities and cash balances held by him as such private property. In pursuance to the merger agreement, the plaintiff submitted to the Government of India an inventory of properties which he claimed to be of his private ownership. While submitting the said inventory, the plaintiff included the properties, described at Sr.No.20, which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. The Shrine of Shri Arasuri Ambaji situated on Mount- Arasur in Shri Ambaji Town within Danta State. 2. Mount Gabbar 3. All movable and immovable properties dedicated to and bequeathed upon the said Shrine of Shri Ambaji as listed below:- Note. While submitting the said inventory, the plaintiff included the properties, described at Sr.No.20, which is reproduced hereinunder: “1. The Shrine of Shri Arasuri Ambaji situated on Mount- Arasur in Shri Ambaji Town within Danta State. 2. Mount Gabbar 3. All movable and immovable properties dedicated to and bequeathed upon the said Shrine of Shri Ambaji as listed below:- Note. All these properties shall be managed by a Trust to be created by Government, His Highness the Maharana will be the Chairman of the Board of Trustees which will include the representatives of the local area and a representatives of the Bombay Government.” 10. It is clear that the above-referred properties were treated as the State Proprieties to be managed by the trust which was created by the Government of Bombay for the management of Ambaji Temple, etc. It also appears that in August-1951, the plaintiff sent a draft of the trust deed to the Ministry of States. The plaintiff accepted the decision of the Government in respect of Ambaji Temple, etc. Thereafter, on 31.05.1953, the said properties were taken over by the Government of Bombay in pursuance of decision of Union Government to treat the said properties as State properties to be managed by a trust and the acceptance of the decision by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being dissatisfied with the said decision, filed Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953 before the Bombay High Court which was allowed on 23.03.1954. The Union of India, being dissatisfied with the order of the Bombay High Court dated 23.03.1954, filed Civil Appeal No.112 of 1954 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed on 03.12.1957 by setting aside the order dated 23.03.1954 passed by the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.915 of 1953. During the same period i.e. in the year 1970, the plaintiff also filed one Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 before this Court inter alia seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the Shrine and the properties belonging to it and that the respondent nos.2 and 3 have no right, title or interest therein and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. Vide order dated 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, this Court dismissed Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 by observing as under: “In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, that prayer of his cannot be granted. Vide order dated 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, this Court dismissed Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 by observing as under: “In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, that prayer of his cannot be granted. The matter has been concluded finally between the parties by the decision of the Supreme Court and it is not open to the petitioner to reagitate that question in this petition in a different gurb. The second prayer which he has made is that in terms of the merger agreement entered into by him with the Dominion of India, this Court should direct by a writ of mandamus the Union of India to nominate an officer with judicial experiences and to refer to him the dispute in respect of the said properties of Shree Ambaji Temple for a decision as to whether they were the private properties of the petitioner or they were the State properties of Danta State. This prayer also cannot be granted. To grant this prayer and to issue a writ of mandamus against the Union of India, is to enforce the merger agreement between the parties. Article 368 bars the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of enforcement of any merger agreement. In my opinion, therefore, the second prayer which the petitioner has made suffers from constitutional bar and must be rejected. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in any of the two reliefs claimed by the petitioner and the petition must fail.” 11. Thereafter, on 15.06.1970, the plaintiff filed suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970 against the defendant nos.1 and 2 praying to direct the defendants to handover the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit properties, described in Paragraph-2 of the Schedule-A to the plaint and further direct them to render a true and faithful accounts of all the income, profits, benefits and offerings realized, recovered received and/or derived at the said temple and/or from the said properties; defendants be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amounts that may be ascertained to be due on taking accounts as prayed for in the preceding prayer; all accounts were taken, directions given and order passed for the aforesaid purposes and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. It also appears that right from the beginning i.e. since the year 1948, it was decided that the subject properties shall be managed by a trust to be created by the Government and accordingly, Shree Aarasuri Ambaji Mata Devsthan Trust – the petitioner trust came to be constituted and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act vide Registration No.A-497 on 16.08.1973. As per the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner, trust is managing the subject properties since many decades. The subject properties are recorded in favour of the petitioner trust in the PTR as well as in city survey record. Therefore, the relief sought by the plaintiff more particularly relief seeking handing over peaceful and vacant possession of the suit properties, etc. would have direct bearing on the petitioner trust as it is the petitioner trust who is managing, maintaining and in possession of the suit properties. Therefore, any order which may be passed in the suit would have direct bearing on the petitioner. Grant of any relief in the suit would certainly affect the rights of the petitioner, and therefore, according to this, the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit. Further, the plaintiff had also filed one Special Civil Application No.55 of 1970 before this Court seeking declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the Shrine and the properties belonging to it and defendants have no right, title or interest therein and such other incidental and ancillary reliefs. It appears that on 02.05.1974/10.06.1974, the aforesaid Special Civil Application was dismissed by this Court by observing that “in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, that prayer of his cannot be granted. The matter has been concluded finally between the parties by the decision of the Supreme Court and it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate that question in this petition in a different gurb. The matter has been concluded finally between the parties by the decision of the Supreme Court and it is not open to the petitioner to re-agitate that question in this petition in a different gurb. The second prayer which he has made is that in terms of the merger agreement entered into by him with the Dominion of India, this Court should direct by a writ of mandamus the Union of India to nominate an officer with judicial experiences and to refer to him the dispute in respect of the said properties of Shree Ambaji Temple for a decision as to whether they were the private properties of the petitioner or they were the State properties of Danta State. This prayer also cannot be granted. To grant this prayer and to issue a writ of mandamus against the Union of India, is to enforce the merger agreement between the parties. Article 368 bars the jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of enforcement of any merger agreement. In my opinion, therefore, the second prayer which the petitioner has made suffers from constitutional bar and must be rejected. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in any of the two reliefs claimed by the petitioner and the petition must fail.” From the averments, the petitioner is in possession, managing and maintaining the properties and would be necessary and proper affected party to the proceedings. Plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally not impleaded the petitioner through its trustees as party defendants in the suit. The plaintiff was very well aware that the petitioner -trust is registered to manage the properties and yet, he has not impleaded the petitioner as party in the suit. The learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that if the petitioner through its trustees is not impleaded as party to the suit, it will adversely affect the interest of the petitioner – trust. Further, it appears that the Trial Judge has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has claimed relief only against the Government of Gujarat and Union of India. Findings of the learned Trial Judge is misconceived and contrary to the facts and evidence in the case. Further, it appears that the Trial Judge has committed an error in holding that the plaintiff has claimed relief only against the Government of Gujarat and Union of India. Findings of the learned Trial Judge is misconceived and contrary to the facts and evidence in the case. The relief/s sought in the suit by the plaintiff is not against the defendant nos.1 and 2 but it is also against the petitioner trust inasmuch as the properties of which the possession is sought, are in fact in possession, maintained, managed and running in the name of petitioner trust and therefore, it cannot be said that there is no relief sought against the petitioner. From the record also, it appears that the plaintiff has filed one after another application (Exhs.56 and 117) to stay the suit proceedings, which was reached upto this Court and finally the said relief was rejected by this Court. In the present case, presence of the petitioner is necessary for passing an effective decree in the suit and his presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the matter in issue in the suit filed by the plaintiff. In the present suit, the plaintiff has sought relief for possession of properties which belong to the petitioner and are in fact in possession, managed and run by the petitioner, and therefore, presence of the petitioner is required to decide the controversies involved in the suit. 12. In the case of Alok Kumar Lodha Vs. Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. reported in 2011 SCC Online Del 4370, in this context, reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (supra). On the issue of addition of party, the Supreme Court held as follows: “13. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties are those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the court or that there must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the controversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose presence before the court would be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such person.” 13. It is clear from the facts of the above case that the proposed defendant i.e. present petitioner is necessary and proper party to completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 14. In the case of Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs. Kiran Kant Robinson and others (supra), it was held that application for impleadment by subsequent transferee of suit property cannot be allowed against wishes of plaintiff who has filed the suit for specific performance in question. 15. In the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra), suit was filed in the year 1986 for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain property executed in favour of it by appellant. The said respondent subsequently in the year 1987 assigned its rights and interests under that agreement in favour of the respondent no.3. In 2014, the respondent no.3 consequently filed chamber summons before Single Judge of High Court for its impleadment as plaintiff no.3 in the said suit and amendment of plaint pursuant to agreement of sale in its favour. The learned Single Judge allowed the amendment of the plaint by impleading respondent no.3 as assignee after 27 years of filing of suit. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that vitally it was affected valuable right of defence of appellant/defendant causing serious prejudice to it. 16. In another judgment in the case of Ramgopal and Others Vs. Radheshyam Dans through legal hairs and others, on 10.04.2018, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7648 of 2018, the petitioner – plaintiff’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment in the suit laid by the respondents-plaintiffs against the respondents-defendants was dismissed on the ground that application having been filed after delay of over 12 yeas as no reason for condonation of delay in filing the application was made out to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. The Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan observed that the Trial Court has exercised its discretion fairly and reasonably on an objective consideration of the material before it in rejecting the application for impleadment. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in the facts of the case as the impugned order is neither perverse nor vitiated by misdirection in law. 17. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in the facts of the case as the impugned order is neither perverse nor vitiated by misdirection in law. 17. In the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Private Limited and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Private Limited and others (supra), it was a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of immovable property. Transfer was made pendente lite in violation of Court’s order prohibiting transfers pendente lite. It was held that joinder of transferee pendente lite of such transfer made pendente lite. As there was no valid, title or interest acquired by the appellants in the suit property and suppression of material facts and presence is neither required to decide controversy involved in the suit nor required to pass an effective decree. Hence, appeal was dismissed. 18. In the case of Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal and others (supra), it was held that it is open to the Court to interfere with the order if it is held that two courts below had acted without jurisdiction or acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of their jurisdiction in the matter of allowing the application for addition of parties filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC. The question of jurisdiction of the Court to invoke Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to add a party who is not made a party in the suit by the plaintiff shall not arise unless a party proposed to be added has direct interest in the controversy involved in the suit. 18. In the case of Sarvinder Singh Vs. Dilip Singh and others (supra), it was held that the respondents neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and hence not entitled to be brought on record as alienation was made in favour of the respondents during pendency of the suit it was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. 19. The judgments relied upon by the plaintiff are based upon the facts of each case, wherein the party who seek impleadment in the suit was not found necessary for effective decision in the suit. Non of the judgments would be helpful to the plaintiff as facts in the present suit is quite different than facts referred in the cited judgment. 20. Non of the judgments would be helpful to the plaintiff as facts in the present suit is quite different than facts referred in the cited judgment. 20. Considering the facts of the present case and submissions made by learned advocates/learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned AGP as well as learned advocate for the plaintiff, the petitioner has acquired interest, title and possession of the suit property and therefore, the petitioner trust is a necessary party and without presence of the petitioner, no effective decree can be passed that relief can be claimed against the defendant. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed on application below Exh.169 dated 19.09.2019 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970 is required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside by allowing this petition. The petitioner shall be permitted to be impleaded as party defendant no.3 in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 1970 pending before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Danta. 21. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.