The court reiterated the principles for determining whether a party is a necessary or proper party to a suit, emphasizing the need for the party to have a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit and for their presence to be necessary for effective and complete adjudication.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Sainder Kaur filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party in the suit bearing No. 658 of 28.1995 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. This application was allowed by the learned trial Court, vide order dated 17th July, 1997, which is impugned by the plaintiff in the suit in this revision petition.

2. Jaspal Kaur had filed a suit for declaration claiming that she is owner in possession of the property bearing No. 84-J, Sarabanagar, Ludhiana. It was further averred in the plaint that the said plaintiff had perfected her title by way of adverse possession besides other grounds stated in the plaint. This suit was contested by Hazara Singh who did not refut the title of the petitioner over the property.

3. During the pendency of the suit, applicant Sainder Kaur filed the present application primarily on the fact that M/s Blunder Steel Industries and Mr. H.S. Bhinder had obtained loan from the Syndicate Bank. The account became irregular and the bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,93,398/- titled as Syndicate Bank v. Bhinder Steel Industries and Ors., which was decreed and the appeal against the same was dismissed on 2.12.1993. The applicant, who was also a defendants in that suit was held liable and had to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,45,000/- on 24th March, 1995. This entire amount was due from the concern M/s Bhinder Steel Industries and Hazara Singh who was the proprietor. The applicant being a surety was compelled to make the payment to the Bank. Subsequently, Sainder Kaur filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,58,975/- and for injunction against M/s Bhinder Steel Industries and others including Hazara Singh. The said suit was also for injunction restraining Shri H.S. Bhinder and Jaspal Kaur from alienating the property in dispute in that suit. The suit was filed on 28th April, 1995.

4. It is the case of the applicant Sainder Kaur that the Jaspal Kaur is the daughter-in-law of Hazara Singh and the present suit. which was instituted on 2nd of August, 1995 is a collusive suit and is intented to frustrate the right and the decree, if passed in her favour. It is on these allegations that she has filed the present application for impleadment as a defendant in the present suit so that she could prevent fraud and recover her money which she was forced to pay as surety of the parties to the present suit. This application was allowed and Sainder Kaur was permitted to implead as defendant in the suit. Aggrieved from this order dated 17th July, 1997, Jaspal Kaur has filed the present revision petition.

5. The basic contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that Sainder Kaur is neither necessary nor proper party for the effective adjudication of the present suit No.658 of 2.8.1995 titled Jaspal Kaur v. Hazara Singh. The Petitioner/plaintiff is the dominus litus of the proceedings and unwilling party cannot be imposed upon the plaintiff keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that in order to prevent the fraud sought to be played upon the applicant/respondent, it is necessary and in the interest of that Sainder Kaur should be impleaded as a party and order passed by the learned trial court ought to be maintained.

7. The provisions of order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure vests in the Court wide discretion in regard to the impleadment of necessary and proper party to the proceedings. Such discretion has to be exercised in conformity with the settled provisions of law and principles enunciated by various pronouncements. The necessary consideration before the Court while determining the question of impleadment of a party to the proceedings is whether the said party is necessary or proper party and presence of such party before the Court is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the subject matter. The learned counsel