https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197519 Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is justified only where the proposed party has a direct, subsisting and legally recognisable interest in the subject matter and its presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy. Mere commercial interest, indirect impact, or usefulness as a witness is insufficient, and the plaintiff's dominus litis cannot be used to expand the suit beyond those parties essential to decide the claims on record. Applying that principle, IDBI was held neither a necessary nor a proper party, so its impleadment was refused and the suit continued without it. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jan 2018 13:07:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197519 Impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is justified only where the proposed party has a direct, subsisting and legally recognisable interest in the subject matter and its presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the real controversy. Mere commercial interest, indirect impact, or usefulness as a witness is insufficient, and the plaintiff's dominus litis cannot be used to expand the suit beyond those parties essential to decide the claims on record. Applying that principle, IDBI was held neither a necessary nor a proper party, so its impleadment was refused and the suit continued without it. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197519