The court ruled that proposed defendants need to show necessity for inclusion in a suit, affirming that absence does not impair justice or adjudication of existing claims.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the impleading applicant in O.S.No.117/2019 is directed against the impugned order dated 23.04.2025 whereby the application – I.A.No.14 filed by the petitioner-impleading applicant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking impleadment was dismissed by the Trial Court by holding as under:

“ORDER ON I.A.NO. XIV

“The application under 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C., filed by the applicant seeking to impleading the proposed defendant No.2 i.e. Mr. Harish Puthran in the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Along with application the applicant has the sworn the affidavit and contended that, the plaintiff filed the suit by suppressing the material facts and suggested false hood in the suit with an intention of illegal gain. He is the Purchaser of the plaint schedule property as per agreement dated on 06.06.2022. He is the Proposed Defendant in the OS proceeding and produced relevant documents before this honorable court to prove the illegal sale (plaint schedule property) intended by the Opponent /plaintiff. Suppressing the real fact of the aforesaid proceeding now filed above false suit without joindering me as necessary parties to the above suit proceedings. This is agreement for sale (Dated 27/03/2019) between Defendant and plaintiff (H. Sadananda Shetty, H. Rathnakara Shetty. Mrs. Malathi R. Manai, Dinesh Shetty, Mrs. Laxmi Shetty, Mrs Shamala Sheety, Mrs. Veena M Shetty, Praveen Kumar Shetty.Mrs.Nandini Shetty, all are represented by their General Power of attorney Holder Mr. Kochu Shetty (Defendant). If he has impleaded in the suit as a Proposed Defendant No.2 and able to show the real facts of the case and properly adjudicate the matter in dispute involved in the aforesaid proceedings. If the application is allowed no hardship will caused to plaintiff in the proceeding.Hence, this application.

3. On the receipt of the application the plaintiffs have filed counter statement. Wherein, it is the contention of the plaintiff that application to implead the proposed defendant no.2 in the suit as alleged as proper and necessary party is false, frivolous and not sustainable either in law or on merits. The plaintiffs deny the Agreement for Sale dated 27.03.2019 between the proposed defendant and the present defendant i.e., Mr. Kochu Shetty. It is denied that H. Sadananda Shetty, H. Rathnakara Shetty, Mrs. Malathi R. Manai, Dinesh Shetty, Mrs. Laxmi Shetty, Mrs. Shamala Shetty, Mrs. Veena M. Shetty, Praveen Kumar Shetty, Mrs. Nandini Shetty, all are represented by their General Power of Attorney Holder, Mr. Kochu Shetty (defendant). It is further submitted that the cause title itself of the application is wrong, and as per the above application, the defendant has filed the above application and not a third party, the defendant in the present suit is mentioned as applicant whereas the applicant is a third party, therefore it is contrary to Civil Rules of Practice as well and wholly misconceived and wrong. The list of documents mentioned Le., Doct. Nos, 1 to 4 i.e., Sale Agreement, receipts, legal notice and reply relates to the alleged Sale Agreement entered between the applicant and defendant in the above suit which has got nothing to do with the present dispute involved in the above suit, as the applicant has got equal and efficacious remedy available under law. The inter-se dispute the applicant and defendant cannot be agitated in the above suit and no relief can be granted to the applicant. The applicant is no way affected by the result of the above suit as there is no cause of action to come on record. As far as Doct. Nos. 5 to 8 i.e., the alleged sale agreement entered in to between the applicant and the plaintiffs is nothing but fabricated and concocted documents. There is no consideration passed under the s