The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a person's presence in court to enable effective adjudication and settlement of all questions involved in the suit, emphasizing the tests for impleading a person and addressing the application of res judicata.

JUDGMENT :

1. The facts of the matter, in a nutshell, are as follows:

2. The opposite party no.1, an erstwhile Bishop of the proforma opposite party no. 2, filed a suit against the proforma opposite party no. 2 for several declarations and consequential reliefs, primarily challenging the decision of the proforma opposite party no. 2 to discontinue the services of the opposite party no. 1 as the Bishop of the Diocese of Calcutta, on the basis of the decision to decrease the age of superannuation for such post from 68 years to 65 years.

3. In the said suit, the present petitioner made an application for impleading himself, on the ground that the petitioner was the present incumbent in the said post of Bishop of the Diocese of Calcutta, thus having direct interest in the fate of the suit. By the impugned order, the said application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed on contest by the trial court.

4. It is relevant to mention that previously another application had been taken out by the Diocese of Calcutta for getting itself impleaded as a party to the suit, which was rejected by the trial court on February 15, 2019. The trial court, while dismissing the present application, held inter alia that the dismissal of the said prior application for addition of party operated as res judicata against the petitioner. It was further held in the impugned order that the Bishop's function under the Synod of the proforma opposite party no. 2 (the Church of North India) and the legality of the decision of the Synod had been challenged in the suit, which could not be a matter of personal grievance of the petitioner. The decision of the court, it was held, shall bind the plaintiff, the proforma opposite party no. 2 and consequently the Bishop, whoever was in office at the relevant time.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was not only a proper but a necessary party to the suit, since the petitioner was the present incumbent in the post of the Bishop of the Diocese at Calcutta, which was in contention of the suit. In the event the plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 succeeded in the suit, the petitioner would be the worst affected party, since he would be removed from the said post as a necessary consequence. As such, it is argued that the trial court ought to have added the petitioner as a necessary party to the suit.

6. Learned senior counsel cites a judgment reported at (2007) 10 SCC 82 [Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) Through Mankanwar (Smt) W/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead) and others], wherein it was held that if a person can show a fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment. The said case arose from a suit for specific performance.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner then places reliance on a judgment reported at (2017) 9 SCC 700 [Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya vs. Jethbhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (deceased) Through Legal Representatives and others], which laid down that Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the court to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings if the person's presence in court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings was held to be one of the objects of the said provision. It was observed that the said provision empowers the court to substitute a party to the suit if such addition is necessary for the determination of the real matter in controversy in the suit and/or the controversy so raised cannot be effectively and completely settled without impleading such person. Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code, it was held, gives wide discretion to the court to deal with such a situation which may result in prejudicing the interests of the affected party if not impleaded in the suit and where the impleadment of the sa