IMPORTANT POINT
At stage of considering application under Order 1, Rule 10 of CPC, only question involved in suit has to be considered is whether amendment is necessary or proposed person is a necessary or proper party.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.C.Pandey, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This revision has been preferred under Section 115 CPC against an order dated 27.5.2011 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Allahabad on application No.29-Ga in original suit No.499 of 2009, Savitri Singh v. Kamla Jha. By means of the impugned order, the trial court has allowed certain amendment in the plaint and has also impleaded certain persons as defendants including the present revisionist namely “Amar Nath Shroff.”

3. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist contended that entire suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was wholly a gross abuse of process of law inasmuch as the plaintiffs/respondents launched litigation on various occasions upto the Apex Court and had relied on certain compromise decree which has been allegedly in force and in respect of same, an application was also filed by the revisionist which is pending for final orders. The revisionist is neither/necessary nor proper party in the matter, therefore, the impugned order could not have been passed. He placed reliance on a judgment of Apex Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal & Ors. 2005(1) Apex Court Judgments 640 (SC): 2005(6) SCC 733.

4. Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that revisionist himself has admitted in his objections that he owned the property which was subject matter of dispute in the original suit and in view thereof he was necessary and proper party and has rightly been impleaded by the court below. So far as the question, whether the suit itself is maintainable or not or has rightly been filed, there is no fraud committed by the plaintiffs/respondents. The questions related to merit of the suit can be contested by a person who is a party to the suit and therefore all these pleas would be available to the defendant revisionist after he is impleaded and not otherwise. Once a person is impleaded as a party then, he can always raise pleas but at this stage all these arguments cannot be entertained unless revisionist become a party in the original suit. This also justifieds his impleadment.

5. Certain facts which are not disputed between the parties are that original suit No.499 of 2009 was filed by two plaintiff/respondents namely Smt. Savitri Singh and Sundaram Muraly. There was only one defendant namely Kamla Jha, w/o Sri Shankar Jha. The plaintiffs sought following reliefs in the suit.

(A) To award a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs against the defendant and restrain her from selling 50% of the plaintiff herein the disputed property in any manner directly or through her agent and servant.

(B) To pass a decree or declaration that in the plaintiffs are owners of the properties holding 50% share in the suit properties detailed at the foot of the plaint.

(C) To ward the cost of proceedings of the suit to the plaintiffs.

6. It appears that some ad interim injunction was also granted by the court below in the aforesaid suit. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Order 6, Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC which was registered as an application No. 29G. By this application the plaintiffs/respondents requested court below to allow impleadment of the following defendants in the above suit:

10. A…….

1. be added and being to name and address of the defendant Smt Kamla Jha, the name and address of third party be added as under:

2. Mr. Sanjai Jhunjhunwala, Chairman Mani Group 9 IT chamber, Mani Square” 164/1 Mariktalla Main Road Kolkata 700054.

3. Mr. Vijay Agarwal Chairman And Managing Director Sattva Group 4th Floor, Sala Purta Hindsorl Jullor Road, Bangalore 56042 Karnataka (India).

4. Mr. Amar Nath Shroff, Chairman Diamond Group 6C/2 Harish Mukherjee Road Kolkata 25.

5. Munici