https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313611 Applicants claiming ownership and possession of disputed land were necessary and proper parties for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC because their title and possessory rights were directly in issue in connected litigation arising from the same property. Since the relief sought could immediately and materially affect their rights, the controversy could not be effectively adjudicated in their absence. The dominus litis principle did not displace the requirement that persons likely to be directly affected by the decision be joined. Impleadment ought to have been allowed. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:04:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313611 Applicants claiming ownership and possession of disputed land were necessary and proper parties for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC because their title and possessory rights were directly in issue in connected litigation arising from the same property. Since the relief sought could immediately and materially affect their rights, the controversy could not be effectively adjudicated in their absence. The dominus litis principle did not displace the requirement that persons likely to be directly affected by the decision be joined. Impleadment ought to have been allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313611