Swatanter Kumar, J.:— Sainder Kaur filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party in the suit bearing No. 658 of 2.8.1995 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17th July, 1997, which is impugned by the plaintiff in the suit in this revision petition.

2. Jaspal Kaur had filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is owner in possession of the property bearing No. 84-J, Sarabanagar, Ludhiana. It was further averred in the plaint that the said plaintiff had perfected over title by way of adverse possession besides other grounds stated in the plaint. This suit was contested by Hazara Singh who did not refute the title of the petitioner over the property. During the pendency of the suit, applicant Sainder Kaur filed the present application primarily on the fact that M/s. Blunder Steel Industries and Mr. H.S Bhinder had obtained loan from the Syndicate Bank. The account became irregular and the bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,93,398/- titled as Syndicate Bank v. Bhinder Steel Industries which was decreed and the appeal against the same was dismissed on 2.12.1993 The applicant, who was also a defendant in that suit was held liable and had to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- on 24th March, 1995. This entire amount was due from the concern M/s. Hinder Steel Industries and Hazara Singh who was the proprietor. The applicant being a surety was compelled to make me payment to the bank. Subsequently, Sainder Kaur filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,58,975/- and for injunction against M/s. Bhinder Steel Industries and others including Hazara Singh. The said suit was also for injunction restraining Shri H.S Bhinder and Jaspal Kaur from alienating the property in dispute in that suit. The suit was filed on 28th April, 1995.

3. It is the case of the applicant Sainder Kaur that the Jaspal Kaur is the daughter-in-law of Hazara Singh and the present suit which was instituted on 2nd of August, 1995 is a collusive suit and is intended to frustrate the right and the decree, if passed in her favour. It is on these allegations that she has filed the present application for impleadment as a defendant in the present suit so that she could prevent fraud and recover her money which she was forced to pay as surety of the parties to the present suit. This application was allowed and Sainder Kaur was permitted to implead as defendant in the suit. Aggrieved from this order dated 17th July, 1997, Jaspal Kaur has filed the present revision petition.

4. The basic contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Sainder Kaur is neither necessary nor proper party for the effective adjudication of the present suit No. 658 of 2.8.1995 titled Jaspal Kaur… v. Hazara Singh….. The petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litus of the proceedings and unwilling party cannot be imposed upon the plaintiff keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in order to prevent the fraud sought to be played upon the applicant/respondent, it is necessary and in the interest of that Sainder Kaur should be impleaded as a party and order passed by the learned Trial Court ought to be maintained.

6. The provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure vest in the Court wide discretion in regard to the impleadment of necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Such discretion has to be exercised in conformity with the settled provisions of law and principles enunciated by various pronouncements. The necessary consideration before the Court while determining the question of impleadment of a party to the proceedings is whether the said party is necessary or proper party and presence of such party before the Court is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the subject matter. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon Sarup Chand v. Nagar Palika, Sangrur, AIR 1980 (Pb. & Hry.) 114 to argue that the order of the present kind need not to be interfered by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This cannot be accepted as a correct proposition of law. There could never be a strait-jacket formula which could universally be made applicable to every case. Each case would have to be decided on its own merits keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. Even in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been stated that High Court would not ordinarily interfere in such order unless impleading of the party results in manifest failure of justice or the Trial Court has acted with material irregularity.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Harbhajan Singh v. Sarup Chand, 1993 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 203 (Pb. & Hry.) to argue that the respondent No. 2 could not have been impleaded as a party.

8. At this stage, I consider it appropriate to refer the judgment of this Court rendered in Krishan Lal v. Suresh Kumari, Civil Revision No. 1204 of 1997 whereupon detailed discussion of the case law on the subject, the Court specified certain parameters which would form the basis foundation for such decision. The following conclusion of the Court needs to be noticed:

“The Code of Civil Procedure provides as to how a suit has to be instituted and how would it end. The Code provides thread of continuity, which would regulate various stages of the suit. In other words, the intention of the legislation must and has to be gathered from the various provisions of the Code read collectively and in conjunction with each other. Whereas Order 1 Rules 1 and 3 of the Code provides who are the persons who could be joined as plaintiffs and or defendants, Rule 10 gives power to the Court to add parties to direct addition and impleadment of parties and Rule 8-A gives right to a party to approach the Court for being impleaded as a party if the applicant has an interest in any question which directly and substantially arises in the suit. The provisions regulating impleadment of necessary and proper parties, who presence is before the Court for proper and final adjudication must be construed in a wider perspective as the provisions of Order 2 Rule 1 of the Code clearly indicate that every suit as far as practicable, be framed so as to afford grounds for final decision upon the subjects in dispute and to prevent further litigation concerning them. To hold that avoidance of multiplicity of litigation in regard to the same subject matter is not even relevant factor while considering the application for impleadment, to my mind, would be an approach not in line with the spirit of the procedural law.

9. In order to have a pervasive and baroque approach to the provisions of the Code which would be also in consonance with the scheme of the Code, which would be to read the provisions of Order 1 and other effecting provisions of the Code collectively, rather than to read and construe Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code in abstract or isolation. Interpretation of construction of procedural laws or provisions related thereto must be read to achieve the ends of justice which is an indispensable object of basic rule of law. With the modern development in all spheres of life, the Courts must mould the procedural laws to further the cause of expeditious disposal and determination of all questions in one proceedings, if permissible in law, rather than to direct the parties to create multiplicity of litigation.

10. Without being innovative and primarily oh reiteration of the settled principles, and in a derivative manner, it is possible to indicate certain factors which may be considered by the Court while determining such a question:—

(a) Whether the applicant is a necessary and proper party keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case?

(b) Whether presence of such a party before the Court is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the matter and granting a complete and effective decree to the party entitled to?

(c) Whether such a party interested would be directly effected as a result of culmination of such persons into decree or it would only be effected remotely, indirectly and distantly?

11. In addition to above, where the Court considers the presence of a party necessary for proper and complete adjudication, then it may well be considered relevant whether non-impleadment of such a party would result in avoidable multiplicity of litigation, then effort should be to implead a party rather than to force the party to go to a fresh litigation.

12. The above principles are not exhaustive but are merely indicative what may be considered by the Court in addition to such consideration, which may be appropriately considered by the Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of a given case. The legislative intent to provide an effective protection to a party who may be affected by the questions to be determined by a Court in a suitor proceedings and to have complete adjudication is clear from the introduction of Rule 10-A in Order 1 of the Code vide Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act, 1976.”

13. Applying the above principles, which have been reiterated with approval from time to time to the facts of the present case, it become evident that the Trial Court has fallen in error of jurisdiction in allowing the application. It is a admitted case that the applicant has no interest in the property and she only wishes to recover the amount due to her from the parties to the suit. For this purpose she has already filed a suit, which is pending. The mere fact that she wishes the property in question to remain intact security for execution of a decree which may ultimately be passed in her favour, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C would not be attracted. May be, the applicant is entitled to other relief in her own suit.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to demonstrate as to how the presence of the respondent No. 2 would help the Court in effectively and completely adjudicating upon the matter in dispute. The applicant/respondent No. 2 on the face of it can neither be termed as necessary or proper party. The basic rule that the plaintiff is the dominus litus has some exceptions to it but such exceptions rather fall in a narrow compass. Satisfaction of the Court based upon above consideration is pre-requisite to allow such application. The applicant is a total stranger to the proceedings and does not claim any interest in the subject matter of the suit nor can it be said that any question which would directly affect her interest falls for consideration of the Court in the present suit. The allegations made in the application per-se cannot constitute valid reasons for her impleadment in the present suit.

15. For the reasons aforestated, I am of the considered view that the order dated 17th July, 1997 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the application for impleadment of respondent No. 2 in the present case. Consequently, this revision petition is accepted, the order dated 17th July, 1997 is set aside. The name of respondent No. 2 shall be struck off from the array of defendants. Accordingly, the revision is allowed but without order as to costs.

16. Petition allowed.