The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the petitioners/defendants. The suit, after trial, having been dismissed, the plaintiff has filed first appeal. The appellant filed I.A.3, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC to permit him to implead the proposed respondent as defendant No.3. The petitioners and the proposed respondent filed objections to I.A.3. The appellate court has allowed the impleading of the 2nd respondent, as defendant No.3, Aggrieved, the defendants have filed this writ petition.

2. Sri Rajeswara P.N, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners contended as follows:

(i) The plaintiff failed to implead necessary parties despite the specific objection of nonjoinder of necessary parties having been raised in the written statement, based on which a specific issue was framed and the parties went to trial and the issue having been answered against the plaintiff, in the appeal filed, it is not permissible for the plaintiff to seek impleading of the additional defendant.

(ii) The provision under Rule 10(2) of Order 1 CPC does not contemplate a situation where plaintiff fails to take steps during the pendency of the suit, to implead the party as an additional