The court's discretion to strike out or add parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is based on reason and fair play, and parties must be necessary or proper for effective adjudication.

Jayant Nath, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 25.10.2016 by which his application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was dismissed.

2. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 for possession, recovery, damages and mesne profits. It is contended in the plaint that the property was purchased by Sh.Naresh Chand Gupta. The property was occupied by various tenants/trespassers. It is further stated that defendants/respondents No.2 to 5 are the trespassers in the property. Respondent No.1/plaintiff claims title through alleged Will and Power of Attorney which is said to have been executed by Sh.Naresh Chand Gupta measuring for area 150 sq.yds. in his favour. Hence, the suit for possession.

3. The petitioner has moved this application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC claiming that he is the actual owner of the entire property by virtue of a registered Will and General Power of Attorney dated 30.01.1999 executed by Sh.Naresh Chand Gupta. Hence he seeks impleadment by stating that he is the necessary and proper party.

4. The trial court by the impugned order dismissed the said application holding that the plaintiff is dominus litus. He is the best judge to determine his own interest. It also noted that the petitioner is not in possession of the suit property. Further by impleading the petitioner, the basic nature of the suit would be completely change the lis of the suit. For the purpose of adjudication of the lis in the suit the presence of the applicant was not necessary.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC reads as follows:-

“(2) Court may strike out or add parties - The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or 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, be added.”

7. Hence, the Court may at any stage strike out the name of any party who has been improperly joined or such person may be joined whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to fully or completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions.

8. In Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417 the Supreme Court held as follows:-

“15. A “necessary party” is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a “necessary party” is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A “proper party” is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance.

.............

22. Let us consider the scope and ambit of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC regarding striking out or adding parties. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. The discretion under the sub-rule can be exercised either suo motu or on the applic