A person can only be impleaded as a party to a suit if their presence is necessary to decide the question in controversy between the parties.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. Amritsar Diocesen Trust Association (Regd.) has filed the present revision petition directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, dated 14.5.1997. By virtue of the impugned order, learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short" the Code"). The petitioner prayed for it being impleaded as a party to the civil suit filed by respondent Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association.

2. The relevant facts are that the respondents had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Mrs. Sadiqa and others to restrain them from forcibly and illegally interfering or inter-meddling in the peaceful possession, affairs and management of the respondent-society in the property known as Mission Compound situated at Mahan Singh Gate, Amritsar and St. Luks Church, Jalandhar Cantt. It also prayed for a permanent injunction to restrain Sameul Prince from handing over the possession of the property to the other defendants in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the present petitioner submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for being impleaded it as a party. It was asserted that the respondent-society is a fake one. It is the petitioner which is the real society. It was declared to be so by the learned Addl. Senior Sub Judge. Amritsar. It was held that Dr. Anand Chandu Lal was the Chairman and Sadrick Sohan Lal was the Secretary. By filing such a suit, the respondent-society want to grab the property of the petitioner. The respondent has already been restrained to interfere in the affairs of the petitioners society. Thus, the petitioner society should be impleaded as a party to the civil suit.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents who contested the said application, it was asserted that the petitioner has no right to be impleaded as a party. It was further contended that the alleged office bearers of the petitioner society have no interest or title in the management and affairs of the respondent society. The learned trial court on perusal of facts held that the petitioner is not a necessary party and, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner as such was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. On behalf of the petitioner it was highlighted that the respondent-society is a fake society. By filing such a suit for injunction it only wants to confuse the controversy and establish its rights. In this process, the respondent-society intends to usurp the land and property of the petitioner-society. The petitioner should be impleaded as a party for proper adjudication of the question in controversy.

5. On behalf of the respondents, it was, however, contended that the petitioner-society is not a necessary party for adjudicating the question in controversy vis-a-vis the respondent-society and others.

6. In the facts of the present case, the contention of petitioner-society cannot be appreciated or accepted. The relevant provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code reads as under:-

"10(2) Court may strike or add parties:-

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff of defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."

7 The relevant portion reproduced above shows that the Court on its own molion or on the application of a person or a party may implead a person is a plaintiff or a defendant but the presence of that person is necessary to decide the question in controversy betwee