Impleadment of person in actual possession may be allowed after trial begins where it avoids ineffective decrees and execution disputes.

A person in actual possession of the suit property may be treated as a necessary and proper party where absence from the suit could leave the decree ineffective and lead to execution disputes or further litigation. Even after commencement of trial, amendment of the plaint and impleadment may be permitted if the plaintiff was not shown to know the internal possession arrangement and the interests of justice require it. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 did not bar relief on these facts, and the refusal of impleadment and amendment was set aside, with the applications allowed on costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person in actual possession of the suit property, though sought to be impleaded after commencement of trial, was a necessary or proper party; and whether the plaint could be amended and such impleadment permitted despite the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The application sought impleadment of the person found to be in actual possession of the shop and amendment of the plaint to plead his alleged collusion with the existing defendants. The Court noted that the High Court had not examined the impleadment prayer on merits and that the record indicated actual possession with the proposed party. It further observed that, if a decree were passed without impleading the person in possession, execution could be obstructed and further litigation could ensue. Although the trial had commenced and the amendment application was belated, the Court accepted that the plaintiff may not have known the internal arrangement concerning possession and held that the interests of justice required the application to be allowed.

Conclusion: The proposed party was a necessary as well as a proper party, and the amendment and impleadment applications were rightly allowed notwithstanding the proviso to Order VI Rule 17.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing impleadment and amendment were set aside, the application was allowed on payment of costs, and the suit was directed to proceed to decision on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A person in actual possession of the suit property, whose presence is necessary to avoid ineffective decree or future execution disputes, may be impleaded and the plaint amended even after commencement of trial where the interests of justice so require.

---