Separate consideration of amendment and impleadment requests required; clubbed applications under civil procedure were found procedurally unsound.

A combined application for amendment of plaint and impleadment of proposed parties was treated as procedurally problematic because impleadment must be considered first, as it determines who may file pleadings and raise objections before any amendment is examined. The Court disapproved the mixed approach to distinct prayers under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, noted that separate applications avoid confusion, and indicated that trial courts may insist on independent filings and impose costs where appropriate. The impugned common order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh, separate consideration of the amendment and impleadment requests.

---

---

Issues: Whether a single application combining a prayer for amendment of plaint and a prayer for impleadment of proposed parties was maintainable and whether the impugned common order on such clubbed prayers was liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The combined presentation of distinct prayers under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was treated as causing avoidable confusion and complicating adjudication. Separate consideration was held necessary because impleadment of parties must be decided first, as it affects the right to file pleadings and raise all consequential objections, and only thereafter can amendment issues be effectively examined. The order below was found to have proceeded on an improper mixed-up approach, and the practice of accepting such clubbed applications was disapproved. The Court directed that, in appropriate cases, trial courts should insist on separate applications and may use their power to impose costs.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held unsustainable, set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial Judge for fresh decision on two separate applications.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the proceedings were sent back for independent adjudication of the amendment and impleadment requests, with liberty to file separate applications and a direction for expeditious disposal.

---