The court's discretion to add or delete a party from the array of parties is grounded on justice, equity, and good conscience, and the presence of a party is necessary for an effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.

JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Title Suit No.38 of 2009, are aggrieved of order dated 10.08.2017 by which their application for impleading the vendor as well as vendee of a part of the suit property has been dismissed.

2. Title Suit No.38 of 2009 has been instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs'' right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendants over the suit land and a decree for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. Schedule ''I'' to the plaint contains details of the suit land; the suit land is comprised under Khata No.28, Plot No.289, Area about 0.06 acres at Mouza-Mandardih. During pendency of the suit when the plaintiffs came to know that about 1.33 decimals of land in Khata No.28, Plot No.289 at Mouza-Mandardih has been sold by one Ravi Prakash Kandhway to Om Prakash Sahu, they filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for their impleadment in the suit. This application has been dismissed by the trial judge on the ground that the petitioners have failed to describe boundaries of the properties which allegedly has been sold by the said Ravi Prakash Kandhway.

3. Who is a necessary party and who can be a proper party has been explained by the Supreme Court in " Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another reported in , (1963) AIR SC 786". It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for an effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit 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 on the question involved in the proceeding is a proper party. Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC provides that the Court, suo motu or upon an application may order that name of a person improperly joined in the suit struck out and a person who is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon the matter in the suit, may be added. The power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience. It is always a discretion of the court to add or delete a person from array of the parties.

4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for deciding the suit effectually and completely, particularly to avoid any objection during execution of the decree, impleadment of the subsequent purchaser as well as the person who claims himself as owner of a part of the suit schedule property is necessary.

5. At the outset it needs to be indicated that apprehension projected on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived. It is moreso because the defendants, who have laid a claim over the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale-deed dated 04.06.2005, have objected to this application for impleadment. The plaintiffs have disclosed the name of vendor as well as vendee of the land comprised under Khata No.28, Plot No.289 and while so, the defendants now would be precluded from raising any objection during execution of the decree, in the event the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.

6. Another aspect of the matter is that once stand of the plaintiffs has been made known to the defendants, the defendants would be precluded from raising any objection on the ground of non-joinder of parties.

7. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.