This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14-3-2013 in I.A.No.1076/2012 in O.S.No.59/2009 on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal.

The petitioners are third parties to the above mentioned suit filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect of Ac.2-20 cents of land in Survey.No.533/A2 of Bheemaram village, Hasanparthi Mandal, Warangal District. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining respondent Nos.2 to 5 from interfering with the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s possession over the property. It is the pleaded case of respondent No.1 that she has purchased the suit schedule property from the wife of one Devadas and one Ranadheer Reddy under registered sale deed dated 4-4-2006. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1076/2012 in the said suit inter alia with the plea that their vendors have purchased the properties under registered sale deeds dated 31-12-1998 from Bokka Devadas and that they have in turn sold the properties to the petitioners on different dates in 2009 and 2010. It is their further case that they were not aware of the filing and pendency of the above mentioned suit till date; that they have noticed a newspaper publication in Saakshi Telugu Daily on 1-11-2012 calling for objections for granting of construction permission in favour of respondent No.1/plaintiff over the suit property and that immediately thereafter, they have filed the I.A. for their impleadment in the suit.

Respondent No.1/plaintiff contested the said application by filing a counter-affidavit. By order dated 14-3-2013, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application.

The main ground on which the lower Court dismissed the petitioners’ application for their impleadment in the suit is that they failed to specifically point out as to where their plots fall in Sy.No.532 or 533 and that as no relief has been claimed against the petitioners by respondent No.1/plaintiff, they are neither necessary nor proper parties for adjudication of the suit.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC confers discretion on the Court, either to strike out or add parties, at any stage of the proceedings either upon or without the application of any party. The main criterion for addition of parties is to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Whether a person is a necessary or a proper party depends upon the nature of the dispute raised and the relief claimed by the plaintiff.

In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (AIR 1963 S.C. 786), the Supreme Court has drawn a subtle distinction between a ‘necessary’ and a ‘proper party’. It is instructive to reproduce the relevant portion of the Judgment, at para-7, hereunder :

“ … A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”

The relief of injunction is personal against the person and those who claim through him. Such injunction orders therefore do not bind third parties. This is the reason why the Courts are generally loath to permit impleadment of parties in injunction suits. If a third party has any apprehension that he will be deprived of the property, he can always file a substantive suit against the person who in his opinion is likely to evict him in the guise of an order or decree for injunction. However, no law has been laid down in absolute terms that in an injunction suit, a third party cannot be impleaded.

In Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra (1995(3) SCC 147), while dealing with the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Supreme Court held as under :

“The object of the rule is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter so that the dispute may be determined in their presence a