(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of order dtd. 31/8/2007 by which the application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for impleadment in Title Suit No.45 of 2006 has been dismissed. The petitioner was applicant no.4.
(2.) Title Suit No.45 of 2006 was instituted by Sanatan Dhibar and Bijay Dhibar for a decree for setting aside the settlement made in favour of defendant nos. 4 and 5 by the defendant nos.1,2 and 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad is defendant no.1, Deputy Director, Fishery, Hazaribagh is defendant no.2 and District Fishery Officer, Dhanbad is defendant no.3 in the suit. The plaintiffs have pleaded that settlement in favour of defendant nos.4 and 5 is in breach of the conditions under Circular dtd. 5/5/1992 and 18/1/1984. In the pending suit an application for their impleadment was filed by 10 applicants, the petitioner was one amongst them, on the ground that by virtue of judgment and decree in Title Suit No.95 of 1993 they have valuable interest involved in the suit property. However, this application has been dismissed by the trial judge on the ground that issues involved in both the suits were different.
(3.) Whether a person is a necessary party or a proper party in the suit has been explained by the Supreme Court in "Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another, 1963 AIR(SC) 786". It has been held that the one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute is a necessary party and the one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding is a proper party. Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC the Court may at any stage of the proceeding, either suo-motu or upon an application of a party, struck out the name of any party who has been improperly joined and name of any person who ought to have been joined may be added in the suit. This power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is grounded on justice, equity and good conscience.