The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court to order impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code and the necessity to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS revision is under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from the order dated 14-12-1993, passed by Munsiff, T. Narasipura on I. A. No. 4 moved in F. D. P. 18/90, in Original Suit No. 22/77, allowing the impleadment of the respondent as defendant No. 4.

( 2 ) ). The facts of the case in nut-shell are that the suit for partition had been filed by the plaintiff Smt. Aswathamma, impleading Kotamma, Sampathamma and Vijayalakshmi as defendants, claiming 1/4th share each against defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. It may be mentioned as observed by the Trial Court, second defendant in her written statement had taken the plea that the deceased first defendant had taken her son in adoption and during the trial registered Will was executed in favour of the present applicant whereby deceased defendant No. 1 had bequeathed the suit property in favour of the son of defendant No. 2, that is the present appellant, but the plaintiff did not implead the applicant in the suit. In spite of issue No. 2 raised in the suit that the property belonged to the applicant-H. N. Vijaya Raghava, present applicant was not impleaded and in those proceedings preliminary decree was got passed for partition without the present applicant being impleaded as a party, whereunder the share of the plaintiff was decreed 1/4th share against defendants 1, 2 and 3. It appears that at one stage the applicant had moved an application for stay of the proceedings in the suit under Section 151 of the CPC, and when the proceedings were at the final decree stage, the Civil Judge rejected the prayer and the applicant had filed the revision petition in No. CRP. 1315/93, which has been dismissed by order dated 7-9-1993, with the observation as under :-"in that suit he filed an application for stay of further proceedings in the F. D. P. , that F. D. P. , arose out of a partition decree made in respect of properties in question. Whatever rights these parties have in respect of the properties in question, will have to be worked in F. D. P. If the petitioner has any right in respect of the properties, he can certainly work out the same against the parties concerned to whose share the properties fall. "it is thereafter the present applicant moved under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC. , for being impleaded as a party or as one of the defendants to protect and to work out his right in respect of the properties. It was stated, partition was effected on 15-3-1976 between the first defendant Kotamma and her brother-in-law R. Rangappa and the suit properties were allotted to the share of first defendant and as first defendant had no male issues, so he has taken applicant in adoption on 7-6-76 and on the same day he executed a registered Will in favour of the applicant pertaining to the suit properties and the applicant claim to be in enjoyment of the property after the death of first defendant. He stated that at that time he was minor, but now after having attained majority he is in personal cultivation and that the decree passed without impleading him is not binding and as such he has got right to putforth in the proceedings with respect of the suit properties and that he was necessary party to be impleaded therein to avoid multiplicity of suits.

( 3 ) NO doubt objections were filed by the opposite parties, denying the allegations that the applicant was adopted or that the Will was executed in his favour etc. , but those questions have to be decided later on. It had to be looked into whether in view of such allegations, in order, to the point in issue being decided finally, impleadment of present respondent that is the applicant who moved the impleadment was necessary or proper party or not. The Trial Court opined that the applicant who was not a party in the earlier proceedings, since he has set out his right independently both on the basis of adoption and the Will of the year 1976, he is a necessary and also a proper party to adjudicate upon and settle the points in