ORDER 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11.03.2011 passed by ADJ No.3 Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 116/2010, whereby the application filed by the petitionerdefendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was dismissed, the present writ petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 2. Leaned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent-plaintiff initiated a suit for eviction and possession against the petitioner-defendant. During the proceedings, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead the alleged tenant of the respondent-plaintiff; District Collector, Ajmer; Nagar Parishad Ajmer; and Municipal Corporation, Ajmer. However, the same was dismissed. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners had purchased the land in question from government in compliance of the order given by District Collector Ajmer, and in pursuance thereto, the land was allotted to the petitioners by Nagar Parishad. The possession of the same was handed over to the petitioners by the Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam, after completing all the formalities and after depositing the due requisites. The petitioner have constructed the building and telephone exchange to facilitate mobile connections in remote areas. The petitioners have been enjoying the lawful possession of the land in question ever since the same was allotted to them. The alleged tenant of the respondent-plaintiff had, on earlier occassions, filed a suit No. 146/1979 in respect of the disputed land titled as Roop Chand vs. UIT before the Additional Munsiff Magistrate First Class West Ajmer and another Suit no. 89/1988 before the Court of Civil Judge (JD) Ajmer titiled as Roop Chand vs. UOI. In both the suits, it was held that the land in question was not the disputed land which the petitioner had purchased. Learned counsel further contends that, to ascertain the true and correct facts, for proper adjudication of the suit, the application filed by the petitionerdefendant ought to have been allowed and the paries should have been impleaded as party-defendants as they were necesarry parties, and without evidence of such parties, the suit cannot not be adjudicated properly. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application and held that the parties that the petitioner-defendant prayed to be impleaded were not necessary parties. Furthermore, the issue no. 4 was also decided at the preliminary stage by holding that the issue in application and issue no.4 are similar. 3. However, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application and held that the parties that the petitioner-defendant prayed to be impleaded were not necessary parties. Furthermore, the issue no. 4 was also decided at the preliminary stage by holding that the issue in application and issue no.4 are similar. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has passed a reasoned and balanced order. The petitioner-defendant have been permitted to present the appropriate officers of the different government bodies as witnesses to adduce evidence. Their impleadment, being not required, was rightly denied. Learned counsel has relied upon the Apex Court judgments of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.: AIR 2010 SC 3109 and Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and Ors.: AIR 2005 SC 2813 . 4. Heard and considered. 5. Before adverting to the issue, it is necessary to consider the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, which is reproduced below: "10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, it satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.--Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. " The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC specifies that a suit can be initiated at any stage against a necessary party if the party sought to be impleaded has a nexus with the matter in dispute. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC casts an obligation upon the Court to permit substitution/institution of necessary parties in a suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, though not the main objective, is one of the incidental objects of the said provision. 6. In the case in hand, in the opinion of this Court, the application of the petitioner-defendant ought to have been allowed for the following reasons: (i) The petitioner had purchased the land from government in compliance of order of District Collector Ajmer and in furtherance thereof, the land was allotted to the petitioner-defendant by Nagar Parishad, Ajmer. The possession of the same was also handed over to the petitoner-defendant by the Municipal Corporation/Nagar Nigam after the requisites were duly carried out by the petitionerdefendant. The possession of the land has been with the petitioner-defendant ever since. Therefore, if the suit for eviction and possession is filed against the petitioner-defendant, the above said authorities needs to be impleaded as it was from them that the petitioner bought the land in question. (ii) Even in the previous suits filed by the alleged tenant, it was specifically held that the land purchased by the petitioner was seperate from the disputed land, qua which proceedings have being going on for last 30 years. (ii) Even in the previous suits filed by the alleged tenant, it was specifically held that the land purchased by the petitioner was seperate from the disputed land, qua which proceedings have being going on for last 30 years. (iii) Even in the cases relied upon by the respondents, it has been held that impleadment of parties should have a nexus with the litigation and if the same is established, their impleadment should be allowed for proper and effective adjudication of the suit. Even the concept of dominus litus has been disregarded in the said judgments. 7. In view of the aforesaid, and relying upon the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi (supra), this Court deems it appropriate to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2011. Consequently, the impleadment application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC before the learned Trial Court is allowed. 8. Further considering that the matter is pending since long, all the parties are directed to fully cooperate with the learned Trial Court for early adjudication of the suit. It is expected that the suit will be decided/adjudicated expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.