The court's discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC allows for the addition or striking out of parties at any stage of a proceeding, guided by reason and fair play, to ensure complete and proper adjudication.

This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the order, dated 21.07.2010 passed in C.M.P.No.15 of 2009 in A.S.No.256 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTC No.IV, Chennai.

2. The petitioners herein / proposed parties are third parties to the suit and the appeal.

The suit was filed by one Eliiah Reddiar, the second respondent herein and one Chakrapani against the respondents 1, 8, 9 and 10 herein and two others, seeking declaration of title of the suit schedule property and other consequential reliefs. After contest, the suit was dismissed without costs. Aggrieved by which, appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and the legal representatives of the first plaintiff. Reversing the Judgment of the trial court, the appellate court decreed the suit by its Judgment and Decree, dated 13.04.1989 in A.S.No.158 of 1988. Aggrieved by which, second appeal was preferred by the first respondent herein, who was the second defendant in the suit.

3. While allowing all the second appeal, by a common Judgment, dated 24.12.1999, this Court directed the 15th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and also directed the Advocate Commissioner to be appointed to inspect the property with the assistance of a surveyor to locate the properties covered by the decree, based on the ground reality. It was also permitted for the purpose of locating the properties, apart from the documents already filed in the suits, other documents and records, which might be available with the help of surveyor, after taking measurements with reference to Field Measurement Book (FMB) etc., for proper disposal, according to law.

4. After remand, the suit in O.S.No.8909 of 1979 was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by which, A.S.No.256 of 2008 was filed by the first respondent herein. While the same was pending, the petitioners herein filed C.M.P.No.15 of 2009, seeking an order to implead them as necessary parties. The Court below dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by which, this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioners / proposed parties.

5. The short point involved in this revision is whether the petitioners are entitled to be impleaded in A.S.No.256 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, on the grounds raised by them in this Revision.

6. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded in the appeal. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the son and daughter of the deceased K.Elumalai, who died on 21.11.2000, he was not a party to the suit.

7. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent / appellant submitted that the suit was originally filed in the year 1979 by Eliiah Reddiar and two others against six defendants. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, by Judgment, dated 12.10.1987, the same was reversed by the appellate court in A.S.No.158 of 1988 and decreed as prayed for in the suit. The second appeal was preferred only by the first respondent herein, who was the second defendant in the suit. Common Judgment in S.A.Nos. 1661 of 1989, 776, 1147 and 757 of 1990 and W.P.No.8315 of 1993 was passed on 24.12.1999, whereby all the second appeals were allowed by this Court and the Court below was directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner immediately on receipt of a copy of a Judgment and to locate the properties with the assistance of a surveyor. According to the petitioners, K.Elumalai died on 21.11.2000 itself, however, the legal representatives of the deceased K.Elumalai have come forward with a petition to implead them as parties only in the year 2009. As contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, though the deceased K.Elumalai was alive for about 21 years, after filing of the suit by the plaintiffs, he had not chosen