IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to add necessary parties for efficacious adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits, as provided under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.03.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 by learned Sub Judge II, Danapur whereby the learned Court below allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “C.P.C.”) and directed that the applicant Smt. Ramawati Devi (respondent No.1) be added as a party-defendant in the suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit being Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 for declaration that suit land described in Schedule-I of the plaint was joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 10 and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not have a right to sell the same and the land sold by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 by a registered deed of sale dated 16.03.2011 having no effect and the same may be set aside. The defendants (except defendant Nos. 2 to 4) filed their written statement. The issues were framed and three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff were examined. The petition dated 09.08.2017 filed on behalf of Smt. Ramawati Devi under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the C.P.C. with prayer to add her as defendant in the suit as she is necessary party stating that the suit property is the ancestral property of the father of the intervenor-petitioner namely Sudarshan Singh and after his death she is legal heir of her father’s property because he has no male issue and the plaintiff also conceded in his cross-examination that Sudarshan Singh has two daughters but he has not made party to them in the suit. The said impleadment petition was objected by the plaintiffs on the ground that the suit is mainly for declaration that alleged deed of sale dated 16.03.2011 executed by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void-ab-initio, fraudulent, forged, fabricated and purchaser defendant No. 1 did not acquire any right and title over the property and accordingly intervenor-petitioner is not a proper and necessary party in the suit. However, the said impleadment petition has been allowed by the impugned order dated 24.03.2018.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1, Smt. Ramawati Devi is not a necessary party as in no manner it can be said that her presence is necessary as party-defendant in the suit to decide any issues or for passing a judgment or any of the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff. He has further submitted that Smt. Basmati Devi alongwith her daughter Smt. Bina Devi and then minor daughter Smt. Ramawati Devi had filed Title Partition Suit No. 38 of 1969 for partition in respect of their one-third share which was dismissed for default vide order dated 28.01.1977. He next submits that the suit is not the suit for partition but is for declaration of sale deed as void-ab-initio and the intervenor is not affected by the decision in the suit as she has no interest in the suit land and the law is well settled that if the intervenor is not a necessary or proper party, the plaintiff being dominus litis, the impleadment petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that plaintiff is claiming the suit property as joint family property and the petitioner being legal heir of co-sharer of the joint hindu property, is necessary and proper party and the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the impleadment petition of defendant No. 1 by the reasoned order which does not require any interference by this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction.

6. Law is well settled that the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the C.P.C. are very wide and powers of the Court are equally extensive. Even without an applicant to be impleaded as a party, the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings order that the name of any party, ought to have been joined, whether as plainti