MURALILAL CHABRIYA Vs. S MURALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I. A. III OF 2004 the appellant wants to implead BDA, Bangalore as respondent 3 in this appeal for the reasons stated in his affidavit filed in support of I. A. III filed under Order 1, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

(2.) IT was vehemently argued for the appellant that in view of the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 10, Order 43, Rule 2 read with order 41, Rule 20 besides Section 151 of the CPC and certain decisions referred, the proposed third respondent is a necessary and proper party and as such, could be impleaded as third respondent. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent opposed the request submitting that the proposed third respondent is neither a necessary party nor a proper party in the present appeal and the provisions and decisions relied on for the appellant do not help the appellant to implead third respondent. Of course, the proposed third party has not opposed the request. Perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE point for consideration is: "whether the BDA could be impleaded as third respondent or not?"