The court emphasized the wide powers conferred on the courts by Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to permit the addition of parties in a suit, with the limitation that the party should be a necessary or proper party.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is a defendant in Title (Partition) Suit No.153 of 2012, feels aggrieved of order dated 08.02.2017 by which an application for addition of 11 persons in the suit has been permitted by the trial Judge.

2. Without recording facts of the case in detail, suffice would be to indicate that the defendants themselves have raised an objection in their written statement on non-joinder of parties. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC confers powers upon the court to strike-out a party who has been improperly added and to join a necessary party in the suit. Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is founded on justice, equity and good conscience. It confers wide powers on the courts to permit an application for addition of party in the suit, the only limitation under Rule 10(2) CPC is that the party should be a necessary or proper party. Who is a necessary party and who may be joined a proper party in a suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr reported in , (1963) AIR SC 786." . It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision is a proper party.

3. Except raising an objection that the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is a device to fill-up lacuna in the plaintiffs'' case, no other objection was raised by the defendants. Late Abbas Mian would have been a necessary party, has not been denied by the defendants. By the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, the plaintiffs have impleaded the legal heirs of the said late Abbas Mian.

4. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.02.2017 the writ petition is dismissed.