ORDER

By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.01.2024 passed in RCS A No.1100092/2010 by the 29th District Judge, Indore in so far as his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act have been rejected.

2. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance of contract. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for impleadment of Nurussahar daughter of Kalimuddin as a party to the suit. It was submitted by him that in the written statement objection has been taken by the defendants that Kalimuddin has another daughter Nurussahar who has not been impleaded as a party by the plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted that he was not aware of her hence could not implead her earlier.

3. The application has been rejected by the trial Court primarily on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the application could not have been so rejected.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that the suit was instituted in the year 2010 whereas the application has been filed after almost 14 years despite plaintiff being aware of existence of defendant now proposed to be impleaded by him. There is ordinate delay in filing the application which has not been explained hence the same has rightly been rejected by the trial Court.

5. As per Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC the Court has powers to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings. This is the power of the Court itself and is not necessarily required to be exercised only upon an application having been filed in that regard. The Court suo moto has the power to direct impleadment of a party to the suit if his presence before the Court is necessary. Thus, the stage at which the application for impleadment is filed is not the only consideration.

6. In the written statement itself the defendants have raised an objection that Kalimuddin had another daughter Nurussahar who has not been impleaded by the plaintiff. It is on such objection that application for implemented was filed by the plaintiff. The said application could not have been rejected by the trial Court merely on the ground of delay particularly when as per defendants themselves the proposed defendant is a necessary party to the suit. In rejecting the application the trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.

7. The other application of the plaintiff which has been rejected by the trial Court was under Section 45 read with Section 73 of the Evidence Act for appointment of a hand writing expert for examination of the signatures of Kalimuddin available on record with his signatures available in the other documents on record. This application has also been rejected by the trial Court primarily on the ground of delay and by holding that it is for plaintiff to prove the said fact in evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the application could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. There is a serious dispute as regards signature of Kalimuddin on the questioned document which is necessarily required to be compared with his admitted signatures available on record and handwriting report called in respect of the same. The signatures have been categorically denied by the defendants hence for doing complete justice in the matter the application ought to have been allowed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants has submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing of the application for which no explanation has been furnished by the plaintiff. The suit was instituted in the year 2010 and after closure of plaintiff's evidence the application has been filed. No reason has been assigned as to why the application was not filed earlier. The plaintiff has been adopting dilatory tactics in the matter and is keepi