It is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question 3 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.” Addition of parties should not be made merely to avoid multiplicity of suits if their presence is not necessary for determining the real question. The said power can be exercised on either of the two grounds: (a) Such person ought to have been joined, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, but is not so joined; or; (b) Without his presence, the question involved in the suit cannot be decided finally and effectively. It cannot be said that the main object of the rule is to prevent multiplicity of actions though it may incidentally have that effect. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness; it is not merely that he has an interest in the correct solution of some question involved and has thought of arguments to advance. The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is so that he should be bound by the result of the action. Therefore, the question to be settled must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. It is necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action is the answer i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally, that is, by curtailing his legal right.