Point of Law :
expression “to settle all questions involved” used in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is susceptive to a liberal and wide interpretation, so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject matter thereof. The parliament in its wisdom while forming this rule must be held to have thought that all material questions common to the parties to the suit and the third parties should be tried once for all. The court is clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result with judicious discretion to add parties, including third parties

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.12.2019 in I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 passed by the 1st respondent-The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and to set aside the same.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent Tribunal dismissed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead him as 3rd respondent in the appeal.

3. Heard Sri. V.N. Prashanth, learned counsel representing Smt. S. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for the 2nd respondent, Sri. M. Venkat Diwakar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Mantha Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7.

4. The facts that led to file the present writ petition are as follows:

“Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 7 of the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules), vide CTA No. 2 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 in R.C. No. 894/2012-Hsg, issued by the 2nd respondent herein. Vide the said proceedings, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein were disqualified for a period of two consecutive terms from contesting the election or cooption under Section 21 AA (1) of the Act. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein preferred the above said appeal raising several grounds and sought to set aside the said proceedings in RC No. 894/2012-Hsg dated 10.12.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. The said appeal was pending before the 1st respondent Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein, a member of the 3rd respondent Society, filed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 seeking to implead him as 3rd respondent in the appeal.”

5. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents 4 to 7 herein, appellants in CTA No. 2 of 2019, have no merits and to drag on the proceedings, filed the said appeal. He further contends that he is a member of the 3rd respondent Society and interested in the welfare of the Society. Respondents 4 to 7 are making false and frivolous allegations without any evidence in the appeal and as such he is a necessary and proper party in CTA No. 2 of 2019 to bring out the real facts. With the said contentions, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 to impelad him as 3rd respondent in the appeal.

6. The 3rd respondent Society filed counter opposing the relief sought in the present writ petition contending that there are 450 members in the 3rd respondent Society and only the petitioner filed the application seeking impleadment in the appeal. The petitioner, being the member of the Society, has no locus-standi to implead in the appeal. In an appeal under Section 76 of the Act, the Tribunal will consider the legality of the impugned proceedings therein basing on the record produced before the Tribunal. The petitioner is not an affected party. Reliance was placed by the 3rd respondent on the principle held by the Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973. In the said judgment it was held that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. In the present case, the 3rd respondent Society is on record and contesting the appeal by producing the record.

7. Respondents 4 to 7 have also filed counter with almost the very same contentions raised by the 3rd respondent. Respondents 4 to 7 have also relied upon the very same principle held by the Apex Court in the very same judgment.

8. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, the 1st respondent Tribunal dismissed the I.A. No. 178 of 2019, holding that the petitioner failed to establish as to how he is aggrieved by the imp