A defendant who has been added to a suit cannot be removed once their rights in the matter are established, as their participation is necessary for relevant adjudication.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

The petitioner/plaintiff No.1(a) is before this Court calling question an order dated 22-01-2025 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.3277 of 2013 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the array of defendants.

2. Heard Sri K. N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.3277 of 2013 seeking declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.5801 of 2000 dated 01-02-2002 as illegal and void and seeks cancellation of the same. The issue in the lis is not with regard to merit of the claim of the plaintiffs. In the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of defendant No.38 into the array of defendants was filed. The said application comes to be allowed on consent of plaintiffs themselves. After allowing of the said application, the plaintiffs again file an application in I.A.No.25 seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the array of parties. This application comes to be rejected. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that defendant No.38 had agreed to support the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not object to his entry at the outset. After coming in as defendant No.38, he has filed his written statement opposing them. Therefore, the plaintiffs now want defendant No.38 be deleted from the proceedings, because he is neither necessary nor proper party and seek further proceedings before the concerned Court be stalled on the said score.

5. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass and are a matter of record. A suit in O.S.No.5801 of 2000 is decreed by way of a compromise in terms of the compromise decree dated 1-02-2002. This is called in question by present plaintiffs in O.S.No.3277 of 2013. As observed, the issue in the lis is not with regard to merit of the matter. An application is filed seeking to implead as a party into the proceedings. The concerned Court passes an order allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The reason rendered in the order reads as follows:

“10. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is also claiming share in the suit schedule properties as a heir of H.Ramaiah. The presence of the applicant in P.Mis. proceedings was not necessary as per the said proceedings question involved is whether the plaintiffs can be granted the permission to sue as in forma pauperis. Now the leave is granted and suit is filed, and the applicant also claims the right in the property similar to that of the plaintiffs contending that he is also legal heir of late H.Ramaiah and he is entitled for share in the suit properties and he has instituted the proceedings in P.Mis No.584 of 2003. These facts are not disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore, presence of the applicant in this proceeding is necessary and therefore he is a proper party to the suit.

11.The applicant can proceed with his petition in P.Mis. No.584 of 2003 and prosecute the suit. But this suit has to be decided in his presence as the plaintiff has not denied the genealogy tree produced by the applicant and the records clearly show that the applicant is also claiming the right over the suit properties. Hence, this Court holds that the applicant is a proper party to this proceeding. Hence, this Court answered point No.1 as above.

12. Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The I.A.No.I filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed with no order as to costs.

The applicant is ordered to