IMPORTANT POINT
The presence of necessary parties is essential for effective adjudication in civil suits, and failure to prove such necessity can lead to dismissal of impleadment applications.

ORDER:

This revision is directed against the orders dated 27.07.2023 passed in I.A.No.74 of 2023 in O.S.No.213 of 2021 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The petitioners herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.74 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC seeking to implead them as party defendants in O.S.No.213 of 2021 instituted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, for declaration and perpetual injunction.

2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the present revision are stated as under:

3. The case of the petitioners/proposed defendants 3 and 4 is that their father Sri Sidramappa was shown as protected tenant over the land in Sy.Nos.302 to 308 situated at Alampally village of Krishna Mandal, Narayanpet District. The said Sidramappa has got three wives i.e. Smt. Eramma, Gangamma and Kanjanamma. The Eramma and Gangamma died issueless. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the children of Kanjanamma and Sidramappa. The plaintiff No.1 is son of Chenbasappa and plaintiff No.2 is his wife. The defendant No.1 in the subject suit is the own sister of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 is the husband of the defendant No.1. The subject suit was instituted claiming equal right and share over the property. The respondents claiming the right over the property as the legal heir of Kanjanamma has filed the subject I.A.No.74 of 2023 under Order I Rule 10 of CPC. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents/defendants stating that the defendant No.1 purchased the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.2128/1994 dated 19.04.1994 from one Mr. Sanjeev Kumar S/o.Sharath Kumar. The respondent No.2/defendant No.2 purchased the suit schedule B property through registered sale deed dated 28.06.2021 bearing document No.401/2021 from the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 purchased the said property through registered sale deed dated 19.04.1994 bearing document No.2127/1994. It is the case of the respondents/defendants in the suit that petitioners herein, who are noway concerned with the suit schedule properties, have filed the subject application only with an intention to protract the litigation and prayed dismissal of the application. On consideration of the entire pleadings and submissions made by both sides, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 27.07.2023.

4. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

5. The suit vide O.S.No.213 of 2021 has been instituted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants and during the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners herein/proposed parties have filed the subject I.A.No.74 of 2023 seeking to implead them as party defendants in the suit. The said I.A.No.74 of 2023 was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.07.2023.

6. It is settled law that a necessary party is one, whose presence is indispensable to the constitution of the suit against whom the relief is sought and without whom no effective order can be passed. It is also settled law that in an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court would only decide whether the presence of the applicants/proposed parties is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings. The test for allowing such applications is that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings and in their absence no effective decree can be passed. Even though it is settled that at any stage, the proper and necessary party is having right to implead in pending suit and if such application is filed, the Court has to consider for allowing liberally, prima facie Court has to consider that the parties who makes application has to necessarily satisfy th