https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313638 In a suit for specific performance, strangers to the contract are ordinarily not impleaded merely because they assert an independent or subsequent claim. Here, the Court treated the petitioner's co-ownership interest in the suit property as a direct and sufficient interest because the probate dispute had already been dismissed, his share was no longer in issue, and he had earlier been associated in the proceedings by filing a written statement and leading evidence. As impleadment would not widen the scope of the suit and would help avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioner was held to be a necessary party entitled to join the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Apr 2024 20:51:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313638 In a suit for specific performance, strangers to the contract are ordinarily not impleaded merely because they assert an independent or subsequent claim. Here, the Court treated the petitioner's co-ownership interest in the suit property as a direct and sufficient interest because the probate dispute had already been dismissed, his share was no longer in issue, and he had earlier been associated in the proceedings by filing a written statement and leading evidence. As impleadment would not widen the scope of the suit and would help avoid multiplicity of litigation, the petitioner was held to be a necessary party entitled to join the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313638