Avoidance of multiplicity of suits.

The petitioners in both the Civil Revision Petitions are the same. The petitioners were the co-owners of a rice mill known as Mahadeva Rice and Oil Mills, along with one Palaniappa. The said Palaniappa sold his moiety of his share to the respondent. The respondent alleged that he is a co-sharer in the said mills and on that basis filed O.S. No. 164 of 1963 oh the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, for a partition of the mills and for separate possession of his share. The petitioners filed their written statement contending inter alia that the mill is a partnership property and that a suit for partition is not maintainable, during the continuance of the partnership. Whilst this suit was pending, the petitioners filed a suit O.S. No. 520 of 1963 in the District Munsif Court, Erode, against the respondent and prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing into the rice mill premises and interfering with the business of the petitioners. The suit was transferred to the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Erode, and now bears O.S. No. 151 of 1964. After the pleadings in both suits were complete, the respondent took out an application in each of the suits pending in the Sub-Court, Erode,.for impleading his vendor Palaniappa Chettiar as a party to both the suits. His contention was that his vendor was both a necessary and a proper party to the suit having regard to the allegations in the pleadings. This was resisted by the petitioners. The lower "Court allowed the application and ordered that Palaniappa Chettiar has to be impleaded though not as a necessary party, but as a proper party under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. The two Civil Revision Petitions are directed -against each of such orders in the two suits.

A proper party is one without whose presence the question in the suit cannot be completely and effectually adjudicated upon. If he is neither a necessary party nor a proper party, the Court has no jurisdiction to add him as a party. Now that the lower Court has held that the vendor of the plaintiff is not a necessary party, it is for consideration whether he is a proper party. If he is not, the lower Court erred in exercising jurisdiction which it has none by impleading the vendor, and its order would be therefore subject to my revisional jurisdiction.

It is an essential pre-requisite for one to be made a party that he should have a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. Ramamurthi, J., had occasion to consider exhaustively the implications of Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, in Krishnamachari v. Dhanalakshmi Ammal1 . The learned Judge observed that the. interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest, that is, an interest which law would recognise and uphold. Thus, the sine qua non for any person being impleaded to an already pending lis is that he or she should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject-matter. A mere convenience or benefit which might possibly result to a party applicant by adding another party to the pending suit is not the test to be applied. Avoidance of multiplicity of legal proceedings is no doubt a salient rule. Such avoidance must be in relation to the lis in question and cannot embrace all possible conceivable litigation that the parties may indulge in later which are totally unconnected with the main issues in the suit. An other infallible test is that a new party can be added in order to decide all questions arising in the suit or involved in the suit. If therefore such questions can be decided without the proposed party, the judicial discretion vested in Court to implead parties under Order 1, rule 10 (2), Civil Procedure Code, ought not to be exercised ; if so exercised, it would amount to a patent exercise of jurisdiction when it is not there. In Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum2, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the interest which the proposed party shall have in