The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person can only be added as a party to a suit if their presence is necessary for the complete adjudication of the questions involved, and that a plaintiff cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom they do not claim any relief.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This Revision petition, wrongly registered as a writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in FAO No. 19(T) 2004 upholding the order dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Title Suit No. 25(T) 1992 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for impleading him as one of the defendants in the suit.

2. I have heard Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.F. Qureshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, I have also heard Mrs. R D.B. Baruah, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

The facts, which are not in dispute for disposal of this revision petition, are that the petitioner, claiming himself to be the co-owner of the suit property situated at Nongthymmai, by virtue of inheritance from his father the late Satyanand Verma, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong for adding him as one of the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 against the respondent No. 2 on the ground that he is a necessary party being one of the legal heirs of the said Satyanand Verma from whom he claimed to have inherited the suit property alongwith the petitioner and other legal heirs. The suit is question being Title Suit No. 25(T) 1992 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 for ejecting the respondent No. 2 from the suit premises. This case of the petitioner is that the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 without his consent. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was intending to grab the suit property on the basis of the false and fabricated will dated 20.11.1974 purported to have been executed by their late father i.e., Satyanand Verma in his favour. In furtherance of such intention, the respondent No. 1 was alleged to have applied for probate by filing L/S Misc. Case No. 38(T) 92 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong which was contested by the petitioner. The learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 13.7.2004 rejected the probate petition whereupon an appeal was preferred by him before this Court which is pending for adjudication. The petitioner laid emphasis on the fact that no interim order was passed by this Court while admitting the appeal. It is against this that the petitioner filed the application for impleadment on 6.8.2004 in Title Suit No. 25(T) of 1992. The learned Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 18.10.2004 rejected the application of the petitioner and proceeded to fix a date for argument. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.10.2004 before the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 24.11.2005, which is now under challenge in this revision petition.

3. Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned judgment and order by contending that since the petitioner is admittedly the co-owner of the suit property, and in view of the fact that the probate petition filed by the respondent No. 1 having been rejected by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim to be the sole owner of the suit property or file the suit for eviction against the respondent No. 2 without his consent. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that inasmuch as the application for impleadment was filed by the petitioner after rejection of the probate case on 13.7.2004 by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, the appellate court acted with material irregularity in holding that the application preferred by the petitioner after almost 12 years could not be entertained. In support of his contention, Mr. R. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies