The main legal point established is that the Court may add any party whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, as per Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.08.2018, whereby the application filed by the respondents for being impleaded as a party in the suit has been allowed.

2. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff/petitioner along with the plaintiff-respondent Nos.8 and 9 has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the only legal heirs of deceased- Hema Ram and that the mutation of inheritance is liable to be entered and sanctioned in their favour. The said suit was filed against the general public. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit. It was stated in the application that the plaintiffs had wrongly shown themselves as legal heirs of deceased-Hema Ram and that they were actually not related to Hema Ram in any way. It was further stated in the application that the applicants are tenants in possession over the suit land for the last many years and further that the plaintiffs had wrongly got mutation No.1494 qua inheritance of Hema Ram sanctioned in their favour which was later cancelled and the entry of mutation was reverted in the name of Hema Ram. It was also stated in the application that an FIR had been registered against the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not joining investigation in that case. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. Vide order dated 14.08.2018, the trial Court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and impleaded the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein as defendants. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been preferred.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 to 6 ought not to have been impleaded as a party inasmuch as they are not necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all points involved in the suit. It is further contended that the said respondents do not have any direct interest in the subject matter and hence ought not to have been impleaded as a party. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments :-

1. Mrs. Prabha Bhasin v. State (Delhi), 1989(2) HLR 355

2. Surjit Kaur v. Chand Singh (P&H), 1984(1) RCR (Criminal) 464

3. Vinod Kumar v. Neelam Chhabra (P&H), 2015(1) RCR (Rent) 594

4. Baijnath v. State of M.P. & others, 1972 M.P.L.J. 11

5. Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others, 1958 AIR (SC) 886

6. Bikali Charan Das v. Sashimani Das and others (Orissa), 2011 AIR (Orissa) 74

4. Per contra the counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 has contended that they are a necessary party inasmuch as the plaintiffs are trying to grab the property of Hema Ram and they are the only ones who will be able to bring the correct facts to the notice of the Court. It is further contended that the plaintiffs had concealed the fact that the earlier mutation No.1494 sanctioned in their favour qua inheritance of Hema Ram had been subsequently cancelled and the entry was reverted in the name of Hema Ram. The counsel further submitted that an FIR had also been registered against the plaintiffs and they were not joining investigation. That being so, the presence of the respondent Nos.1 to 6 was necessary for adjudication of the case.

5. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as CPC) reads as under:-

( 2) Court may strike out 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 or 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 completel