Legal heirs must be considered for joint proceedings if their interests are directly affected by the suit outcome.

1. Petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 13.07.2022, passed by learned Trial Court, dismissing four applications, two filed under O.1 R.10 and the other two filed under S.151 and O.22 R.3 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC in short)

2. The facts of the case are that one Krishna Devi, (proforma respondent No.2 herein) instituted a civil suit against Ajudhya Devi (respondent No.1). The suit was for specific performance of the agreement dated 07.06.1993. The plaintiff pleaded that the agreement dated 07.06.1993 was executed by her late husband Sh. Sohan Lal with respondent No.1 for purchase of suit land. The defendant did not adhere to the terms of the agreement, hence, she instituted the civil suit. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No.1. The plaintiff also filed her replication. At that stage, an application under O.1 R.10 CPC was moved by ten persons seeking impalement in the civil suit as plaintiffs on the ground that they were legal heirs of deceased Sh. Sohan Lal. These ten persons (applicants) were sons and daughters of late Sh. Sohan Lal. Respondent No.1 (contesting defendant) opposed the application under O.1 R.10 CPC. During the pendency of the application under O.1 R.10 CPC, some of the applicants, seeking to implead themselves as plaintiffs also died. Resultantly, further applications were moved to implead the legal heirs of some of the original applicants. All these applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 13.07.2022. This order has been impugned in the present petition.

3. Respondent No.1 (defendant) was served, however, has chosen not to contest the matter. She was proceeded ex - parte vide order dated 29.07.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased Sh. Sohan Lal. They were necessary parties to the civil suit instituted by Smt. Krishna Devi (respondent No.2). Suit was instituted by respondent No.2 for specific performance of the agreement executed by Sh. Sohan Lal. The plaintiff has a dominus litis in the matter. The plaintiff has not opposed the impleadment of the applicants. Learned Trial Court fell in error in dismissing the applications. Prayer was accordingly made for setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 supported the stand taken by the petitioners. Attention was invited to the reply filed on behalf of the proforma respondent No.2 (plaintiff). In this reply, the plaintiff has stated that being dominus litis she has no objection for the impleadment of the applicants as plaintiffs.

5. Learned Trial Court has accorded two main reasons for dismissing the applications; (i) that the impalement of the applicants as plaintiffs would amount to circumvention of provisions of the Limitation Act, which provides that the party has a period of three years for filing such kind of suit and ;(ii) the applicants have not demonstrated any direct or legal interest in the action. The application does not mention in what way the outcome of the suit will affect the applicants.

6. In AIR 2022 SC 4710 : (AIROnLine 2022 SC 346) (Moreshar Yadaorao Mahajan v. Vuankatesh Sitaram Bhedi (D) Thr. Lrs. And others, while deciding the application under O.1 R.10 CPC for impleadment of party in a suit for specific performance, it was held that necessary party is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the Court. For being a necessary party, twin test has to be satisfied. First is that there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of controversies involved in the proceedings and the second is that no effective decree can