The question of law involved in this Original Petition is whether the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale can seek to implead the attesting witness to the agreement as additional defendant in the suit, invoking Rule 10 (2) of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that she is likely to deny her signature in the agreement.

2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 297 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Kuthuparamba against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property. The defendant denied the agreement and her signature in the agreement. She contended that there was no agreement for sale between her and the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the signature of her daughter as an attesting witness in the agreement. According the defendant, the agreement produced alongwith the plaint is a "false and fabricated document created by the plaintiff by forging the signature of the defendant and her daughter Maymoona".

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead Mayamoona, the attesting witness, as supplemental defendant No. 2. The plaintiff also filed an application for consequential amendment of the plaint. In the affidavit in support of the application for impleading, the plaintiff stated thus:

"The defendant had disputed the execution of the sale agreement containing her signature as well as the writings and signatures of her daughter Mayamoona. The said contention is false. Further she had also refused to admit the handwritings and signature of Mayamoona appearing on the agreement. It is with a view to avoid taking of steps and the proof of the agreement. ..........

In the circumstances in order to take necessary steps for proving the sale agreement and to get the effective adjudication of the dispute it is necessary that the said Mayamoona is impleaded."

4. The defendant opposed the applications for impleading and amendment of the plaint. She contended that there is no averment in the plaint regarding the role of Mayamoona in the transaction. Simply because the defendant disputed her signature and that of her daughter in the agreement, impleadment of the attesting witness as an additional defendant is not warranted. For the effective adjudication of the suit, it is not necessary to implead Mayamoona as an additional defendant.

5. The court below dismissed the applications holding that Mayamoona is not a necessary or proper party. The court below held that "it cannot be said that the presence of the supplemental defendant would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit." The order passed by the court below is under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Sri.P.U.Shailajan, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted the following: (a) If the supplemental defendant is impleaded, the plaintiff can serve interrogatories on her; (b) The plaintiff can also take steps to compare her signature with admitted signatures; (c) If the attesting witness denies her signature while giving evidence, the court would not be inclined to seek the assistance of an expert to compare her signature; (d) Specimen signature of the attesting witness cannot be taken under Section 73 of the Evidence Act so long as she is not a party to the suit. The counsel also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mumbai International Airport Private Limited V. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others: (2010) 7 SCC 417.

7.Sub Rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus:

"(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