A court may exercise discretion to add necessary or proper parties in a suit for effective adjudication, distinguishing necessary parties (essential for decree) from proper parties (important for adjudication).

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

Wherefore, the petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to

A Call for the records pending disposal on the file of the Court of the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru (CCH-26) in O.S No 1307/2023,

B. Allow this Writ petition and consequently, set-aside the impugned order dated 3/01/2026 in OS No 1307/2023 rejecting the application (IA No 487) made by the respondent No 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 on the file of Court of X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-26) which is produced as Annexure-A.

C. Pass any other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the revision petition.

2. This petition by the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.1307/2023 is directed against the impugned order dated 03.01.2026 passed by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, whereby the applications, IA Nos. 4 and 7 filed by the plaintiff to implead some lis pendens/pendente lite purchasers as additional defendants 8 to 14 was allowed by the trial Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and defendant No.3 and perused the material on record.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the first respondent - plaintiff has Instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner defendant No.3 and six other defendants for declaration of title, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. The petitioners along with defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the written statement and are disputing and denying the claim of the plaintiff and have also put forth a counter claim for declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the written statement schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff filed two applications viz. IA Nos. 4 and 7 under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead additional defendants No.8 to 14 on the ground that they were lis pendens alinees of portions of the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application by holding as under "

I.A. No.4 & 7 filed by the plaintiff U/O I R 10 of CPC are allowed.

Plaintiff is permitted to bring the proposed defendants No.8 to 14 as defendants No.8 to 14.

However, it is made clear that if the proposed defendants No.8 to 14 feel that they are not necessary or proper parties in the present suit, they are at liberty to seek for their deletion immediately after their appearance before this Court. "

5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that the first respondent - plaintiff has sought to implead the lis pendens purchasers as additional defendants to the suit on the ground that the portions of the suit schedule property had been alienated in their favour and that the suit schedule property had devolved upon them during the pendency of the suit in terms of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC.

6. Under identical circumstances, in the case of M/s J N Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan and Others (2025 INSC 611, it is held as under:

23. In Mumbai International Airport (supra), this Court explained the import of the expressions “necessary party” and “proper party” as thus:

“14. The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party : (a) any person who