Impleadment based on alleged compromise rejected where no present interest had devolved and the applicant was not a necessary party.

A stranger to the suit could not seek impleadment to enforce an alleged compromise where no present interest had been assigned or devolved in his favour. Under Order 22, Rule 10 CPC, the compromise created at most a future or contingent benefit, which was insufficient to amount to assignment or devolution of an interest in presenti. Under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, his presence was not necessary for complete adjudication because the compromise was already disputed and a separate suit covered the same controversy. The attempt to use the alleged compromise as a basis for impleadment therefore failed, and he was not entitled to be added as a party.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to be impleaded as a party to the suit and to enforce the alleged compromise, either on the basis of assignment or devolution of interest or on the ground that his presence was necessary for an effective adjudication of the dispute.

Analysis: The appellant's application was examined under both Order 22, Rule 10 and Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For relief under Order 22, Rule 10, there must be an assignment, creation or devolution of an interest in the subject matter of the litigation in presenti. The compromise did not vest any such present interest in the appellant; at most it contemplated a future benefit or contingent claim, which was insufficient to attract the rule. As to Order 1, Rule 10, the governing consideration is whether the applicant's presence is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit. The Court held that, though questions regarding the compromise had arisen, the appellant's addition would not conclusively resolve the controversy, particularly when the compromise itself was impeached and a separate suit already covered the same matters. The Court also treated the alleged compromise as incapable of supporting impleadment at the instance of a stranger where no present interest had passed to him.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to be impleaded under either Order 22, Rule 10 or Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and his attempt to enforce the compromise failed.

---