The main legal point established is that the impleadment of a party in a civil suit should be decided based on the necessity to effectively adjudicate and settle all points involved in the suit, as provided in Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.-Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment dated 01.09.2006 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of first respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be impleaded as party under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in a suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff appellant.

2. Contextual facts depict that the appellant (for short plaintiff ) filed a civil suit for specific performance against the second and third respondents (for short defendants) on the basis of an oral agreement to sell allegedly entered upon on 10.01.2004 in regards to land bearing Khasra No. 24 at the rate of 1.75 lac per bighas. It was pleaded that despite payment of sum of Rs. 21,000/-the defendants declined to execute sale deed. During the pendency of the suit first respondent (for short applicant) moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code stating therein that applicant was the bonafide purchaser of half of the land in question and agreement to sell was already executed on 09.02.2003 and he paid entire sale consideration i.e. sum of Rs. 24,94,000/-to the defendants and actual possession of the land was handed over to the applicant and sale deed of about 9 bighas land had been executed. The defendants filed written statement and denied the execution of oral agreement. The application seeking impleadment was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 18.02.2006. The writ petition preferred against the said order was allowed by learned Single Judge as indicated above. Hence, this special appeal.

3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us and weighed the material on record.

4. At this juncture a look at Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code appears necessary which provides thus

: "Order 1 Rule 10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff .-

.(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of right plaintiff , the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. Court may strike or add parties.

(2) TheCourt 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 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.

.(3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.

.(4) Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.

.(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons".

5. It is well settled that the question of impleadment of a party is to be decided on the touchstone of Order 1 Rule 10 which provides that only a necessary or a proper party may be added. Mere interest of a party in the fruits of litigation cannot be a true test for his being impleaded as a party. The object of the rule is not to change the scope or character of the suit by adding new parties and to enable them t