The main legal point established in the judgment is that a proposed party can be impleaded as a defendant in a suit if their presence is necessary for effectively deciding all questions and controversies involved in the suit.

The civil revision petitioner/first respondent/ plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 12.08.2008 in I.A.No.813 of 2008 in O.S.No.416 of 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in allowing the application filed by the first respondent/proposed party under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and directing him to be impleaded as 4th defendant in the suit.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.813 of 2008 has inter alia observed that the execution of a document itself is to be proved by means of evidence etc. and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation in respect of agreement of sale and also to consider the claim of proposed party in the present suit itself, ordered the impleading of the proposed party as 4th defendant in the suit and after impleading the proposed party has been permitted to raise his plea by way of counter claim by paying necessary court fee and resultantly, allowed the said application.

.3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urges before this Court that the trial Court has erred in passing orders while directing the impleading of first respondent herein as one of the defendants in the suit without considering the merits of his claim from proper perspective and the trial Court should have seen that a person who sought to implead himself based on an alleged unregistered deed of assignment must prove the assignment in the manner known to law and further that the revision petitioner/ plaintiff/mother has disputed the execution of the assignment and that the trial Court should have seen that mother is the plaintiff and that the son who claimed to have an assignment in his favour is enimical towards her and further that a party sought to be impleaded cannot be transmitted either as a plaintiff or as a defendant without any right to exercise against the plaintiff and in any event, a third party cannot be thrust against the Will of the plaintiff because in the suit plaintiff is the dominus litus and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition to promote substantial cause of justice.

.4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the first respondent/proposed party/petitioner is not a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the present case and in support of his contention, he relies on the decision Hridaya Narain Singh V. Hira Lal (AIR 1995 Allahabad 298 at 299) wherein it is inter alia observed as follows:

."Otherwise also the plea of the applicant that he was the real owner of the property in question and that the defendant opposite party, Smt. Phulmati Devi, was holding the property benami cannot entitle him to be impleaded in the suit in view of the provisions contained in sub-sec.(2) of S.4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 which provides that no defence based on any right in respect of any property held benami, whether against the person in whose name the property is held or against any person, shall be allowed in any suit, claim or action by or on behalf of a person claiming to be the real owner of such property. The applicant, therefore, is not such a person who ought to have been joined in the suit as defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all or any question involved in the suit. The Court below was well within its jurisdiction under sub-rule (2) if R.10 of Or.I of the Code in declining the prayer of the applicant for being impleaded as defendant and did not act either illegally or with any material irregularity."

.5. He also cites the decision M.K. Navennetham Naidu V. Gangiah Naidu and others (AIR 1961 Madras 376) whereby it is held that the real owner is not the legal representative of a benamidar within the meaning of S.2(11) of Civil Procedure Code and that a benamidar can maintain an action in his own name