Surinder Singh, J.
1. Surjit Kaur etc, petitioners filed a suit against Chand Singh respondent for declaration regarding their claim of ownership of half share of the land in dispute and for declaration that they are in possession of the same. The claim of the petitioners was admitted by Chand Singh defendant-respondent. However, during the pendency of the suit, Daulat Singh respondent No. 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) claiming that he had been in continuous possession of the suit land as an owner after the same had been gifted by the defendant-respondent No. 1 to him in June, 1954. Daulat Singh further asserted that he had been adopted as a son by the defendant and he had treated him as a such. With these allegations Daulat Singh prayed that he may be impleaded as a defendant in the suit for a proper adjudication in respect of the title to the property. The application was raised by the plaintiff-petitioners. The trial Court held that the presence of Daulat Singh, applicant was necessary for a proper decision of the case. It, therefore, allowed the application filed by Daulat Singh and directed that he be impleaded as a defendant in the case. It is against this order of the trial Court that the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged that under law the plaintiff is the dominus litus of the case and he could not be forced to fight litigation against third person. The order passed by the trial Court is, therefore, impugned.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the contention an behalf of the petitioners is not sustainable. It is well settled principle of law that a Court has a discretion to implead any person as a party to the suit whose presence is found necessary to effectually and correctly adjudicate upon and settle all the points involved in the suit. It in further rule of law that a person should not be impleaded as a party merely to avoid multiplicity of suits. Apart from these, the Court can also consider if the person seeking to be impleaded as a party has a prima facie and bona fide claim to the subject-matter of litigation. It was held in Razie Begum v. Anwar Begum, AIR 1958.5C 886, that in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as, distinguished from commercial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation and where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable ease where the Court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the controversy. If these salient principles are applied to the case in hand, we find that the applicant Daulat Singh indeed claimed a direct interest in the property being its owner in possession since 1954 on account of having been adopted as a son by Chand Singh defendant. The latter person having admitted the claim of the plaintiff-petitioners it is alt the more desirable that the claim made by the petitioners should be enquired into more closely instead of merely passing a collusive decree. The presence of Daulat Singh in the suit was therefore, rightly held by the trial Court to be necessary for a proper adjudication about the title to the property.
4. Mr. Battas, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the observations made in Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, AIR 1969 Punj & Har 57, in which it was held that a person may not be added as a defendant merely because he would be incidentally affected by the judgment and that the addition of a person as a defendant is not desirable if the same is opposed by the plaintiff. The said case is, however, distinguishable on facts as in the present case, the applicant Daulat Singh would not be incidentally affected but would be directly affected by thc passing of any decree for declaration in favour of the petitioners. Mr. Battas also cited some other authorities in the same strain but they have to be ruled out of consideration on account of the reason already discussed.
5. In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed but with no order as to costs. The trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court for further proceedings on February 27, 1984.
6. Petition dismissed.