The main legal point established is that the determination of necessary and proper parties in a suit is based on the relief sought and the need for their presence to adjudicate all questions involved in the suit.

1. The above Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Orders dated 29.06.2007 passed in I.A.No.232 of 2007 in O.S.No.139 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Salem.

2. The third party in I.A.No.232 of 2007, in O.S.No.139 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Salem, is the revision petitioner before this court. She is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 26. 2007, dismissing the application filed by her under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead herself as the 14th defendant in the suit.

3. The first respondent herein, as plaintiff filed O.S.No.139 of 2004, for a judgment and decree, directing the defendants in the suit namely respondents 2 to 14 herein to perform their part of the contract and to execute the registered sale deed with due measurement free from encumbrance by receiving the balance price within the time fixed by the court or in default permit the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale price and to produce non-judicial stamp papers within the time fixed by the court and the court itself to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also prayed for an alternative relief directing the defendants to return the advance sum of Rs.21.0 lakhs with interest at 21% per annum from the date of the agreement till realization and also to create a charge over the suit property till realization of the amount claimed in the alternative relief.

4. Pending suit, the third party i.e. the revision petitioner herein filed I.A.No.232 of 2007 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead her as the 14th defendant in the suit. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.232 of 2007, the revision petitioner herein, stated that she married the first defendant in the suit, the second respondent herein and she was living with him till 2001. Thereafter, she was treated cruelly by the first defendant and she was also driven out of the family house. She filed a suit in O.S.No.286 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Salem, against the first defendant and prayed for the creation of a charge over the suit schedule property for the due payment of the maintenance amount. Though summons was served on the first defendant in O.S.No.286 of 2006, he did not appear in the court and therefore, an ex-parte decree was passed creating a charge over the suit property, for the due payment of the maintenance amount. According to the third party/the revision petitioner herein, as her suit was decreed ex-parte, creating a charge over the suit property, she is a necessary party in the present suit, as the plaintiff and the defendants in the suit are creating encumbrance over the suit property to deprive of her lawful claim for maintenance. Hence, she filed I.A.No.232 of 2007 for the aforesaid relief.

5. The plaintiff as first respondent in I.A.No.232 of 2007 filed a counter stating that the revision petitioner has got every right to claim her maintenance amount by filing an execution petition against her husband before the Execution Court. Therefore, the present petition filed by her to implead is not enforceable in law because the suit of the plaintiff is based on a contract entered into between the buyer and the seller. That apart, the decree obtained by the third party revision petitioner as against the first respondent is collusive in nature with an intention to prevent the plaintiff from getting on with the trial and also to drag the proceedings of the suit. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the impleading petition.

6. The first defendant also filed a counter in I.A.No.232 of 2007 stating that he has taken steps to file an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.286 of 2006 and the petitioner who is his wife is not a necessary party to decide the lis in O.S.No.139 of 2004.

7. The trial court by order dated 26. 2007, dismissed I.A.No.232 of 2007 and aggrieved by the same, the third party filed