Impleadment of transferee pendente lite refused where the writ dispute could be effectively decided without the transferee's presence.

A transferee pendente lite seeking impleadment in writ proceedings was not treated as a necessary or proper party under the guiding principle of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, because the dispute could be effectively decided without his presence. The Court noted that the applicant derived title through the vendor, would be bound by the result affecting that vendor's rights, and showed no substantiated collusion. The writ petitioner, as dominus litis, could not be forced to add a person merely because that person claimed an interest in the subject-matter. The application for impleadment was rejected and the proceedings continued without the applicants as co-respondents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants, as transferees of part of the land during the pendency of the writ proceedings, were necessary or proper parties entitled to be impleaded as co-respondents under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The provision empowering addition of parties applies on the principle whether a person's presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved. In writ proceedings, the strict terms of the provision may not apply, but its guiding principle remains relevant. The applicants had derived title through their vendor and would be bound by the result of the proceedings affecting that vendor's rights. Their allegation of collusion was found unsubstantial, and the apprehension that their interest might be harmed was held to lie outside the controversy in the writ petition. The writ petitioner, as dominus litis, could not be compelled to implead a person merely because that person claimed an interest in the subject-matter. A transferee pendente lite was not treated as necessary or proper where the main dispute could be effectively decided without him.

Conclusion: The applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties and were not entitled to be impleaded. The application for addition of parties was therefore rejected.

Final Conclusion: The request to add the applicants as co-respondents failed, and the proceedings continued without their impleadment.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee pendente lite is not entitled to impleadment merely because the outcome may affect his derivative interest; impleadment is justified only when the person's presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.

---