The impleadment of a party is not necessary or proper if it would enlarge the scope of controversy and complicate the trial.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of its application under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code seeking impleadment as a party to the suit filed by respondent No. 1 against respondents 2 to 6.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has filed a suit for issuance of perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondents 2 to 6 alleging that respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were employees of respondent No. 1 and in their capacity as employees were inducted into possession of the premises belonging to the society respondent No. 1, which employment having come to an end, the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were bound to restore possession to respondent No. 1.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, as per the averments made in the application dated 5. 2. 1996, under Order I Rule 10, CPC, it is the petitioner and not the plaintiff- respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the suit property. The sale consideration at the time of acquisition of the property in the year 1985 was paid out of the bank account of the petitioner but the sale deed which was executed in 1985 was so manipulated as to be executed in the name of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that if the petitioner was not allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit, there will be multiplicity of the proceedings and the interest of the applicant-petitioner would be seriously prejudiced.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner forming an opinion that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. The impleadment would enlarge the scope of controversy in the suit which could not be allowed.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed forceful reliance on Satish Chand Gupta v. Sarvesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1984 DELHI 409 and Khaja Abdul Khader v. Mahabub Saheb, AIR 1979 AP 152 to submit that the expression : questions involved in the suit as occurring in sub rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 CPC has to be liberally interpreted. To attract the applicability of the provision, it is not necessary that the party sought to be impleaded should be one whose presence may be required for deciding the questions already arising in the suit. If the impleadment would avoid multiplicity of the proceedings touching the same property then it should be allowed.

( 6 ) IN the opinion of this Court the proposition canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is too wide and cannot be accepted. I may straightaway refer to a Pull Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Panne Khushali v. Jeewanlal, AIR 1976 MP 148. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision in D. C. v. Ramakrishan, AIR 1953 SC 521 and Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Benaras Bank v. Bhagwandas, AIR 1947 All 18, the following tests have been laid down for determining who is necessary party to a suit:

" (I) There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the matter involved in the proceedings in question. (ii) It should not be possible to pass an effective decree in the absence of such a party. "

( 7 ) AS to who is a proper party it has been held vide para 13 in the case of Panne (supra):

"the governing expression for deciding the question of proper party is whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Thus, the question of proper parties has also to be decided, bearing in mind the scope of the suit. The question involved in the suit is the enforceability of the contract entered into between the parties. If these applicants are introduced as party in the suit, the scope of the suit, as already observed hereinabove would be enlarged and it would be turned into a suit for title. For effectually and completely adjudicating upon the rights between the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 on the contract, the presence of these applicants is not at all necessary. We cannot be obl