ORDER : 1. Though the matter has been listed in the fresh category, however, on the joint request of the parties, the matter is being heard today itself. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution Of India with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Bhilwara in Civil Suit No. 166/2022, whereby application preferred by third respondent under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking her impleadment as party defendant in the suit has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit (Annex.1) against the respondent No. 1 and 2/defendants before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was registered as original Civil Suit 166/2022. The relief against respondent No. 1 and 2 was sought qua plot Nos. 93 and 94 situated at Shastrinagar near Badla Chauraha, Bhilwara. In the suit, it was inter-alia alleged that the undivided suit property is jointly held by the partnership firm M/s Moti Metal Industries, of which initially partners were S/Sh. Biharilal Pathak, Motilal and Banshilal Pathak. It was further alleged that Sh. Banshilal Pathak died and thus, his wife and son were introduced as partners and the petitioners are also the legal representatives of late Sh Banshilal Pathak. 4. The grounds for the filing of the suit were that on 02.11.2022 the respondent No. 1 and 2/defendants encroached on the land of the petitioners and started raising construction of basement and when the petitioners got the knowledge regarding the same the petitioners asked the respondents No. 1 and 2 to produce the title documents however, the respondents denied and thereafter the respondent No. 2 also obtained electricity connection on the property in question. 5. The respondents Nos.1 and 2/defendants filed a reply to the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 24.11.2022 and 25.01.2023 respectively (Annex.3 & 4). Respondent No. 1/defendant stated therein that he has no nexus with the property and the encroachment and no construction has been done on the property in question. The respondent No. 2 stated therein that plot No. 94 has been sold to wife of Respondent No. 1 on 15.10.2015 and thus now there is no nexus of the respondent No. 2 with the property in question. 6. The respondent No. 2 stated therein that plot No. 94 has been sold to wife of Respondent No. 1 on 15.10.2015 and thus now there is no nexus of the respondent No. 2 with the property in question. 6. During the course of the suit proceedings, the respondent No. 3 filed an application dated 04.02.2023 (Annex.4) under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleading her as defendant in the suit filed by the petitioners while contending therein that she has the title and the possession over the plot in dispute. 7. Learned trial court after hearing the parties allowed the application filed by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.5), which is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 8. In addition to that the petitioners have preferred a suit against the respondent No. 3 before learned Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara being Civil Suit No. 289/2023 Rajesh vs. Akila Bai in which summons were issued to the respondent No. 3 on 01.12.2023 as evident from the copy of the suit, order sheet and the E court case status. (Annex.6, 7 and 8 respectively). 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 4.08.2023 (Annex.5) has been passed illegally and arbitrarily and the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and the facts and laws of the case. Learned counsel submits that as the respondent No. 3 was and is neither a necessary nor a proper party for the adjudication of the suit against respondent No. 1 and 2 and the cause of action was also against them and not against the respondent No. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent No. 3 is nothing but an encroacher on the land that belongs to the partnership firm and the petitioners are the partners thus, the trial court cannot extend the cause of action against the respondent No. 3. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the trial court failed to consider the documents of the title filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3 as the title document annexed by the respondent No. 3 are not registered and on the basis of an unregistered document, title and possession over the property cannot be claimed. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the trial court failed to consider the documents of the title filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3 as the title document annexed by the respondent No. 3 are not registered and on the basis of an unregistered document, title and possession over the property cannot be claimed. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per the principle of dominus litis the litigant being the master of the lis initiates the legal action and has full control over the proceedings as to who should be impleaded as a party and against whom the relief is to be sought and in the present case the petitioners have not sought any relief against the respondent No. 3, however, the trial court by allowing the application filed by the respondent No. 3 has gone against the principle of dominus litis. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the trial court observed that the suit has been filed against respondent No. 1 and 2 qua plot Nos. 93 and 94 since they were encroaching on the property in dispute and further the trial court has also observed that the property in question is undivided property of partnership firm, however, the learned trial court has failed to observe that the applicant- respondent No. 3 is not a necessary party to the suit. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Shakeel Ahmed vs. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (Civil Appeal No. 1598/2023); Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centra & Hotels & Ors. 2010 (4) CCC 294 (SC). 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the applicant-respondent No. 3, as the respondent No. 3 is a necessary party and has the title and possession over the property in dispute as the plot No. 93 was sold by partnership firms Moti Metal Industries and M/s Nasruddin Brothers on 30.12.1980 to Tarachand S/o Ladakmal Sindhi for a consideration of amount of Rs.2500/- and thereafter Tarachand sold the said plot to respondent No. 3 on 01.08.1991 and similarly plot No. 94 was also sold by the aforementioned partnership firms on 30.12.1980 to Goverdhandas S/o Sh. Vadhumal Sindhi for a consideration of amount of Rs.2500/- and thereafter Goverdhandas sold the same to Shabbeer Hussain on 23.10.2001 and Shabbeer further sold it to respondent No. 3 on 15.10.2010 for consideration of amount of Rs 2,50,000/- and as mentioned above the title and the possession of the suit in property has been with the respondent No. 3, therefore, the respondent No. 3 was a necessary party to the suit pending as whatever order will be passed by the trial Court, it will affect the rights of the respondent No. 3 and thus she is rightly impleaded as defendant No. 3 in the suit. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioners have also filed a separate suit against the respondent No. 3 before learned Civil judge cum Judicial magistrate Bhilwara (Civil Suit No. 289/2023: Rajesh vs. Akila Bai), which itself proves that the respondent No. 3 is a necessary party to the suit and her rights will be affected if any order is passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondents thus prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. To support his arguments learned Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater, (1992) 2 SCC 524 . 15. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties; perused the material available on record and the judgments cited at Bar. 16. This Court finds that the petitioners/plaintiffs themselves have filed another suit being Civil Suit No. 289/2023 (supra) against respondent/defendant No. 3 for permanent injunction qua the plots in question, which are also subject matter of the lis in the present case and the said suit is pending adjudication before the court concerned. This Court finds that defendant No. 3 Smt. Akila Bai in her application claimed that she had purchased the plots No. 93 and 94 from S/Sh. Tarachand and Shabbeer respectively through Agreements to Sale which are placed on record before this Court and, therefore, if any judgment is passed detriment to her, her rights would be adversely affected and thus she has right to say in the suit and is rightly impleaded. 17. Tarachand and Shabbeer respectively through Agreements to Sale which are placed on record before this Court and, therefore, if any judgment is passed detriment to her, her rights would be adversely affected and thus she has right to say in the suit and is rightly impleaded. 17. This Court also finds that the suit was at its initial stage and no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs if respondent No. 3 is allowed to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit, as judgment passed in the suit, would have impact over the rights of the respondent No. 3. Furthermore, the petitioners themselves have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 3, and the suit property involved in the said suit is also same, therefore, the respondent No. 3 is apparently a proper and a necessary party to the suit and to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings she has rightly been impleaded as party defendant to the suit. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 2/defendant has submitted in written statement that he had sold the plots in question to Smt. Akila Bai (respondent No. 3 herein), though under Agreements to Sale, thus the respondent No. 3 has right atleast to have a say in the suit and has been rightly impleaded as party defendant as she is a necessary and a proper party as per the provisions of Order I Rule 10. Moreover the principle of Dominus Litis cannot apply here as the trial Court has the right to strike out or add parties whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit as mentioned in Order I Rule 10 (2). Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is reproduced here as under: ORDER I Parties to Suits 10. Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is reproduced here as under: ORDER I Parties to Suits 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, if 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. (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 (XV 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. 18. 18. This Court also observes that the respondent No. 3 has been rightly impleaded as defendant as she has right to relief against petitioner in the suit proceedings before the trial court and no effective decree can be passed in absence of the respondent No. 3 and she falls under the two tests as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733 . Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced here as under: “7. In our view, a bare reading of this provision, namely, second part of Order 1 Rule 10 sub-rule (2) 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. From the above, it is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question who is a necessary party. From the above, it is now clear that 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.” (Emphasis applied) Further Apex Court in the Case of Anil Kumar versus Shiv Nath reported in 1995 (3) SCC 147 while considering the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) observed that though the Court may have power to strike out the name of a party improperly joined or add a party either on an application or without application of either party, the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of such a party would be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit while reiterating the object of the rule being to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute is determined in their presence at the same time without any protraction, inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Apex Court also in case “State of Assam Vs Union of India” reported in 2010 (10) SCC 408 held that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings. 19. As a normal Rule, the applicant informant is dominus litis and has the right to control the proceedings, but at the same time, such applicant is required to notify all other parties against whom the applicant wishes to proceed and after examining the matter, the court has the discretion to direct impleadment of such party and such decision has to be taken on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that a necessary party may be added. 20. 20. In the opinion of this Court, the trial court has not committed any error in passing the order impugned dated 14.08.2023 (Annex.5) allowing application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the order impugned thus does not call any interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 21. In the result, the writ petition lacks merit, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Stay Petition also stands dismissed.