( 1 ) THIS application has been moved under Order 1. Rule 10 (2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by New India Assurance Company Limited tor being impleaded as party in the suit.

( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, leading to the filing of the present application are that Praveen Kumar Bhatia has tiled the present suit against defendants I and 2 who are the doctors and Defendants 3 the Nursing Home owned by Defendant 2, on the ground that due to their gross negligence in treating tbe plaintiff s wife, they have cauaed death of plaintiff s wife and thus plaintiffclaims Rs. 20 lacs as damages from the defendants. The plea taken by the applicant insurance company in the application is that defendant being a qualified medical practitioner had obtained an insurance cover policy for the relevant period covering the risk as "doctors Indemnity Insurance. IMA Medical Protection Scheme" to the tune of Rs, l,00,000. 00 , so it is mentioned in the application that applicant s interests are likely to be affected by any decision to be given in the suit and thus applicant should be allowed to be joined as defendant for defending the suit.

( 3 ) THIS application is strongly opposed by the plaintiff taking the plea that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party to this suit and the question arising in this suit can be effectively decided, without impleading the applicant as parly. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against the applicant.

( 4 ) IT is pertinent to mention that earlier an application has been moved by defendant I to the similar effect but that application was dismissed by the order dated Feb. , 10, 1987 by A. B. Saharya, J. with the finding that as no relief has been claimed against the insurance company and also the presence Of the insurance company is not required for a proper or effective determination of matters in controversy between the plaintiff and the defendants, it is not necessary to implead the insurance company as the party in the suit.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the applicant has vehemently argued that any decision given in the suit against the defendants is likely to affect the rights of the applicant inasmuch as the applicant shall be liable to re-imburse the Defendant I in case any damages are imposed on Defendant I on account of any finding given showing the negligence of the defendant in treating the plaintiffs wife. lam afraid that [be applicant cannot be joined as a party in the suit because the presence of the applicant is neither necessary nor proper for effectively deciding the issues in the suit. Any decision given in the suit to which the applicant is not a party is not going to affect the rights of the applicant inasmuch as the applicant can always take the pleas open to the applicant in meeting the claim which may be put forward by Defendant against the applicant after any decision is given adverse to the defendants in the suit No relief has been sought by the plaintiffs against the present applicant. In Banarsi Dass Durga Prashad v. Panna l Ram Richhpal Oswal, AIR 1969 Pb. and Har. 57 the said provision of Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code came up for consideration. Banarsi Dass had instituted a case for specific performance of contract for sale against Smt. Chameli. Banwari Lal and Panna Lal bad instituted a separate suit against Chameli for permanent injunction restraining her from Interfernce with a Chabutra in their possession and in the alternative they prayed fora relief for possession of that Chabutra. Banarsi Dass moved an application in that suit for being impleaded as a parly mentioning that Chabutra was a part of the property which was the subject-matter of his suit for specific performance of a contract for sale filed against Smt. Chameli. He also pleaded that Panna Lal and Banwari Lal have filed the suit against Chameli in collusion to defeat the rights of Banarsi Dass, applieant. It was al