The discretionary nature of adding parties under Or.1 R.10 of Civil Procedure Code should be considered, and parties should only be added if necessary for a complete adjudication of the controversies in the suit.

1. The Revision Petitioners/Defendants have projected the present civil revision petition as against the order dated 03.07.2009 in I.A.No.461 of 2008 in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Nannilam.

2. The trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.461 of 2008 in O.S.No.38 of 2007 on 03.07.2009 has among other things observed that "the issue to be determined is whether the suit property is in enjoyment of the Plaintiff or in the enjoyment of the Defendant has to be determined in the main suit and at the time of said adjudication or determination of the main suit, there is a possibility for the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants to mark patta and other documents and as such the proposed parties are impleaded in the suit are not necessary parties and consequently, dismissed the application without costs."

3. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants that the trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the I.A.No.461 of 2008 to implead the parties (filed under Or. 1 R 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Code) to the suit mentioned therein, which is contrary to Law and evidence.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants urges before this Court that the trial Court should have impleaded the wife and son of the 1st Revision Petitioner/ 1st Defendant for the reason that already patta in respect of the suit schedule property stood in their names and they have been the absolute owners of the part of the suit schedule property and therefore, they are not necessary and proper parties to the subject matter of the suit.

5. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants that by allowing the I.A.No.461 of 2008, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent/ Plaintiff.

6. Per contra, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff that the wife and son of the 1st Revision Petitioner/ 1st Defendant are not necessary parties to the suit and even though patta stands in their joint name, whether they are the absolute owners of the property earlier or otherwise of these matters are to be gone into only at the time of a complete and comprehensive adjudication of the controversies/disputes being resolved in the suit by means of adducing oral and documentary evidence. At the time of adducing oral and documentary evidence by the parties to the suit, each party will get an opportunity to cross examine the other party and therefore, the persons mentioned in the impleading application in I.A.No.461 of 2008 are not necessary and proper parties to the case.

7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondent/ Plaintiff, it is an admitted case that the proposed parties are the wife and son of the 1st Revision Petitioner/ 1st Defendant and merely because patta has been granted or issued in their names, it cannot be ipso facto construed in law that they are necessary and proper parties to the suit.

8. The ingredients of Or.1 R.10 of Civil Procedure Code are discretionary. The persons cannot be added as Defendants just because they would be affected in the Judgment to be delivered, in an incidental fashion.

9. The real issue is whether the right of persons may be affected if they are not added as persons. This right will include essentially an enforceable right in the considered opinion of this Court. Indeed, the impleading of parties is a matter of fact as such, the Principle of Estoppel against Law is not attracted, as opined by this Court.

10. It is not in dispute that the Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.38 of 2007 praying for the relief of injunction restraining the Defendant or his men from in any way interfering with the Respondent/ Plaintiff's properties. It is represented before this Court that the written statement has been filed by the Revision Petitioners/ Defendants before the trial Court. As on date, the pleadings have been completed. Therefore, th