Presence of parties in litigation requires a demonstrated direct interest in the subject matter as per Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.Naveen Kumar., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person.

There is no representation on behalf of respondents 3 to

7, either personally or through video conferencing.

An emergent notice to the respondents was ordered on

27.07.2023. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

2. The order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malur, Kolar on I.A.No.XI in O.S.No.35/2013 vide Annexure-F is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

4. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court requires interference. 5. Suffice it to note that defendants 6(A to E), 7 to 12 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) R/w Section 151 of CPC contending that defendant No.1 along with one of his daughters - impleading applicant No.2 executed GPA on 26.05.2017 in favor of the proposed impleading applicant No.1 and she in turn has sold the property under different sale deeds in favor of proposed impleading applicants 3 to 5. The Trail Court vide order dated 25.02.2020 dismissed the application.

The controversy involved in the present writ is with regard to impleading of the applicants as necessary parties to the suit proceedings.

Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC deals with striking or adding of parties. It is a settled law that plaintiff is dominus litis, has the choice to implead those persons as defendant against whom he vindicates his right.

The underlined idea of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC is whether the presence of an individual is/was necessary to finally determine the rights of parties or not.

A person may be added as a party to the suit, provided it is shown that he has a direct interest in the subject matter and hence, his presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

In order to come on record as party to the proceedings, the petitioners herein have to show that the presence of proposed impleading defendants is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. But the applicants have not substantiated the same.

It is needless to say that in a suit relating to property, a person may be added as a party, provided he should have a direct interest as distinguished from commercial interest, in the subject matter of the litigation. But in the instant case, the petitioners except stating that the impleading applicants have dealt with one of the suit schedule property, have not shown that they have a direct interest in the subject matter. Therefore, it cannot be said that they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation so as to allow them to come on record.

The question of addition of parties under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the Court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case.

6. In my view, the Trial Court has exercised its power in right perspective. I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court so as to exercise supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed Sd/-