The expression "questions involved in the suit" in Order 1 Rule 10(2) C. P. C. should be interpreted liberally to include all questions pertaining to the subject-matter of the suit, not just those between the parties to the suit.

( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition raises a short but interesting question of law relating to the scope and interpretation of the provision of R. 10- ( 2) of O. 1, C. P. C. and in particular the expression "questions involved in the suit".

( 2 ) IN-ORDER to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to briefly state the admitted facts which lie in a short compass. The petitioner herein and the fourth respondent instituted O. S. 45 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Goodwill, against respondents 2 and 3 here in for their ejectment and possession of the suit lands on the ground that the suit property belonged to the Mosque and the defendants were their tenants: The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and claimed be in possession and enjoyment of the lands. The first respondent died I. A. No. 211 of 1975 to implead him as party-defendant on the grounds that he is the heir of one Chandubai who was granted the suit property by the Samsthan Gadwal in the year l775 Salivahan for the purpose of arranging peers in Gadwal and that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property. The claim of the applicant that he is a necessary and proper party without whose presence the questions retains to the suit property cannot be decided, has been denied by the plaintiffs in the counter whereas the original defendants did not contest this application. The trial court held that the applicant who is sought to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit is a proper party to the suit and therefore, alloyed the application. Aggrieved by that decision the second plaintiff preferred this civil revision petition which came up before a learned single Judge (A. V. Krishna Rao, 3.) who passed the order dated 25-10-1977 directing the C. R. P. to be pasted before a Division Bench as there is a conflict between decisions of two learned Judges of this Court in Sri Rama Murty v. Venkatasubbarao (1956 Andh LT 917) and Somiah v. Amina Begum, (1975) 2 Andh WR 243: (AIR 1916 Andh Pra 182 ). Hence this C. R. P. has come up before us.

( 3 ) SRI R. V. Subbarao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the decision of the trial court is erroneous, illegal and without jurisdiction as the first respondent is neither a necessary nor a proper Party to the suit filed by the Plaintiffs for ejectment of the defendants-tenants and for possession of the suit lands. According to him questions involved in the suit in considering the claims of the parties thereto alone can be taken into account in considering the claims of the parties and cited Vaithilinga v. Sadasiva (AIR 1 1926 Mad 836), Doraiswamy v. Subramania (AIR 1950 Mad 659), Somiah v. Amina Begum (1913) 2 An WR 243: (AIR 1976 Andh Pra 182), P, Kondiah v. P. Guruvulu ( (1978) 2 AP LJ 201), Banarasi Dass v. Pannalal (AIR 1969 Punj and Har 571, G. D. T. Luis v. I. P. Ii. Fernandes (AIR 1977 Goa 4) and the decision in C. R. P. No. l108 of 1969 (Andh Pra) in support of his claim.

( 4 ) THIS claim of the petitioner is opposed by the first respondents counsel Sri O. Adinarayana Reddy, contending. inter alia,that the decision in Sri Rama Murthy v. Venkata Subbarao (1956 ALT 917) should he preferred to that of Somiah v, Amina Begum. (1975) 2 Andh WR 243 : (AIR 1976 Andh Pra 182), The answer to the question largely depends uponthe scope and application of the provisions of sub-rule (3) of R. 10 of O, 1 C. P. C. which reads thus: 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 quest