The main legal point established is that the court has the discretion to add a party as a necessary or proper party in a suit, and a necessary party is one against whom relief is sought and without whom no effective decree can be passed.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide two applications, filed by the applicant M/s Nouveaw Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, the details of which are as under:

1. I.A. No.3563/2012, for stay of the proceedings.

2. I.A. No.3564/2012, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, for impleadment as a co-defendant.

2. Both the above mentioned applications were strongly opposed by the defendant, mainly on the grounds that the applicant is neither a proper nor a necessary party in the present suit and cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party to the present suit. In the other application for stay of the proceedings, it was stated that the said application is a gross misuse and abuse of process of law and the applications if allowed will further delay in passing a final decree of partition in the suit which is more than 28 years old.

3. Firstly, I shall take up the application filed by the applicant, namely, M/s. Nouveaw Exports Pvt. Ltd., under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a co-defendant as the order passed in this application shall have bearing in the other connected application. The case of the applicant is that originally suit was filed by plaintiff Ms Punita Singh against her sister Manjula Singh /defendant seeking partition of suit properties, namely, plot situated at 29 Block, 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, and the land at Khasra No.1257/1244 bearing No.79, Jeevan Nagar, Kilokari. Similarly, another suit was filed by Ms Manjula Singh against Ms Punita Singh for the same relief in respect of same two properties. Both the suits were clubbed by order dated 05.11.1985. Preliminary decree was passed on 05.11.1985 in the present suit holding both the plaintiff and defendant as half shares in both the properties. A Local Commissioner was appointed to suggest means to partition Sunder Nagar property. The property at Sunder Nagar was sold in public auction on 04.08.1986 to the highest bidder and the sale certificate was also issued in October, 1986 in favour of auction purchaser. Thereafter, the suit came up before Court on 22.03.2010 when I.A. No.3596/2012 under Order XX, Rule 18 CPC was listed for passing a final decree after revival of the suit. The matter was adjourned to 23.04.2010. It is also a matter of record that when the suit was listed on 27.09.2011, Mr Subodh S. Mahale, Architect, was appointed as a Local Commissioner directing him to visit the property bearing No.79, Jeevan Nagar, Kilokari, New Delhi, and after taking measurements make a site plan. The learned counsel for the parties made a statement before the Court that the division of the said property was not possible in view of the fact that the property was tenanted. It was agreed by the parties that the property be sub-divided horizontally. Therefore, the Local Commissioner was appointed to give his report. The said report has been filed by the Local Commissioner. After filing of the said report and before passing a final decree, the present application has been filed by the applicant.

4. The contention of the applicant is that both Ms Punita Singh and Ms Manjula Singh approached the applicant in the year 2000 for selling the suit property No.79 in Khasra no.1297/1244 situated at Jeevan Nagar, Kilokari, New Delhi. They represented that the suit property originally was owned by their mother Mrs Prakash Singh, who died on 09.06.1954, leaving behind her husband, Sh. Harikishan Singh, and two daughters, as her legal heirs. Her husband, Sharkishan Singh, vide his letter dated 05.08.1959, addressed to Tehsildar, Mehrauli, Delhi, conveyed his no objection to transfer the property in the name of his two daughters and the year 1959, the said property was transferred accordingly. Therefore, they became absolute lawful owner of the said undivided property. In 1961, both Punita Singh and Manjula Singh inducted a tenant, i.e., Gammon india Limited, in the suit property, thereby creating tenancy rights in the said property, who is having possession of the sam