The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed a suit being O.S.No.61 of 2002 for mandatory injunction on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, Nellore District. The respondents 5 to 10 were arrayed as defendants. They sought for a direction to the defendants to provide pipe culverts across the road to d raw waterfrom Kuchiwada irrigation tank. The petitioners herein, who allegedly owned lands on the northern side of the road, filed application being I.A.NoA03 of 2004 under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to get impleaded in the suit as necessary and proper parties. The application was dismissed on 20-1-2005. Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two grounds. First, she would urge that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as no proper reasons are recorded by the trial Judge. Secondly, she would urge that when Order I Rule 10(2) CPC enables the Court to implead necessary and proper parties at any stage of the suit, the trial Judge committed an error in dismissing the application on the ground that it is belated. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have already filed W. P No.26316 of2000, which is pending, and if the petitioners succeed therein in preventing the officials of the irrigation department from constructing pipe culverts, their application before the lower Court is not necessary.

3. The case of the petitioners before the lower Court as disclosed in their affidavit in I.A. NoA03 of 2004 is this. They own lands on the northern side of the road and the respondents 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) own lands on the southern side of the road who already have a drainage channel to let off floodwater into Swarnamukhi River. They also allege that the ryots of Kuchiwada approached the authorities not to provide any pipe culverts across the road, as the lands will get submerged. Considering this, the authorities came to a decision against providing pipe culverts across the road. They allege that if the suit is decreed they would be directly affected and, therefore, they are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiffs did not file any counter affidavit opposing the application. The trial Court dismissed the petitioners application observing as under.

Perused. Admittedly the petition was filed at a belated stage that too when the suit is at the fag end of trial for evidence of D-6. All these years the petitioners kept quiet without making any effort to come on record. As such the petition is smack and lack of bona fides as such liable for dismissal.

Hence the petition is dismissed.

4. As seen from the above, the only reason given for rejecting the application of the petitioners is that the petitioners approached at belated stage to get impleaded in the matter. This is certainly an error apparent on the face of record. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I of CPC reads as under.

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.

5. Sub-rule (2) enables the Court to strike out name of any party improperly joined or to add any person as a party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant. Thus the rule enables the trial Court to remove the defect of inadequate or improper joining of parties. Its object is the final determination of all the issues and controversies that arise in the suit which can only be