NAKSUK LEPCHA Vs. KYALOO RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this Revision Application, the petitioner who is the defendant in the Civil Suit No. 35 of 1996 of the Court of learned District Judge, Special Division at Gangtok, has challenged the order dated 7/6/2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to implead one Jigmee Dorjee as defendant on the ground that the application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.) filed by the petitioner-respondent is pre-mature. The learned trial Court has further observed that during evidence stage, if it is found that there is cause of action for impleading Jigmee Dorjee as one of the defendants, the Court will decide the issue accordingly.

(2.) Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of C.P.C. is extracted below:-

(3.) While a necessary party is one without whom no order can be passed effectively, effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit, a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence may be necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved. Thus, if a necessary party or party likely to be affected by a decree or party whose presence may be necessary to make a decree effective, is not before the Court, the Court may either upon an application made for that purpose, or of its own motion, direct that such a party be added and such order should ordinarily be passed upon the notice to the party proposed to be added. There is, however, no bar to an exparte order being made in proper cases.