The main legal point established in the judgment is that seeking impleadment in a pending proceeding before a court cannot be claimed as a matter of right against the wishes of the plaintiff. Impleadment should be necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute, and any order passed in the absence of the party should adversely affect their interest.

H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY, J.

1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned single Judge dated 10.08.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.20541/2017, where under the application of the present appellant filed under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908, seeking his impleadment as respondent No.8 was rejected.

2. In this writ appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the learned single Judge has failed to appreciate that, admittedly, the appellant was the absolute owner in continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties involved in the writ petition, having purchased the same under a registered deed of conveyance dated 11.03.1908, as such, any order in regard to the said property would directly affect the rights of the appellant. Citing a Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, wherein the general rule regarding the impleadment of parties has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant has again stated that his lawful possession of the property involved in the matter for more than 110 years has been ignored by the learned single Judge. Further stating that the reasons given by the learned single Judge while passing the impugned order under consideration are not acceptable, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the said impugned order and to allow his I.A.No.5 filed in the writ petition No.20541/2017.

3. In response to the notice, the respondents are being represented by their counsels.

4. Heard arguments from both side.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Anshuman Animesh, in his argument vehemently submitted that the action under section 79-A and 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, against the present respondent Nos.4 and 5 started rolling only upon the complaint lodged by Dr. Rev. Prabhakar Shadrack, who is a District Superintendent of the appellant-Church. It is based upon his complaint before the Assistant Commissioner requesting him to take appropriate action against respondent Nos.4 and 5, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order which is the subject matter throughout even before the learned single Judge in the writ petition. As such, both before the Assistant Commissioner as well the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the present appellant ought to have been made a party.

It is also his argument that the appellant has been in constant possession and enjoyment of the disputed property since more than 160 years. In view of the said fact, any order that may be passed in any proceeding touching the disputed property would affect the interest of the appellant, as such, the appellant is a necessary as well a proper party in the proceedings including the Writ Petition No.20541/2017.

The learned counsel also relied upon a Judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 16 SCC 187 and submitted that the said judgment relying upon its previous judgment reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 has observed the consequence of non-impleading of a proper or necessary party, as such, the present appellant is necessarily required to be impleded.

6. On behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 Sri. Anant Mandagi, learned Senior Counsel submitted his argument, wherein, he stated that the appellant has been in the habit of filing frivolous litigations with respect to the disputed property against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and other interested parties, but all those litigations have proved to be futile. However, it is only with an intention to grab the disputed property which is a very valuable property, the appellant has been repeatedly initiating litigations and legal proceedings.

Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1992) 2 SCC 524 and in MANU/DE/0117/1998, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that those decisions explain as to who is a necessary and proper party in a litigation. In the light of the law under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, interpreted in those two cases relied upon by him, under no stretch of imagination, the present a