https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296750 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. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1936 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296750 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Sep 1936 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296750