A prima facie claimant necessary for complete adjudication may be impleaded in final decree proceedings.

O.S. No. 79/2007 was a partition suit in which a preliminary decree was passed in 2018 and later confirmed in RSA proceedings in 2024.

Final decree proceedings, FDP No. 11/2023, were pending.

J.P. Asharani sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, claiming an interest in the ‘C’ Schedule property as ancestral property and asserting possession over part of it.

The Trial Court rejected her application, finding no established direct interest or necessity for her presence and applying the principle of dominus litis.

Asharani challenged that order; A.B. Anandamma and J.A. Mahaveer separately sought expeditious disposal of the FDP.

Whether Asharani should be impleaded in the final decree proceedings despite the Trial Court’s finding that she had not established a direct interest in the suit properties

Whether the Trial Court should be directed to expedite disposal of FDP No. 11/2023, and whether it could proceed in respect of properties outside Asharani’s claim

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC empowers the court to add a party whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication; Section 151 CPC was also invoked in the impleadment application.

At the impleadment stage, an applicant need not establish the entire claim by evidence; a prima facie claim and the necessity of the applicant’s presence may suffice, with the parties’ rights and contentions left open for adjudication.

The Court considered the dominus litis principle but held that it did not justify exclusion where the applicant was necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

No judicial precedent was cited.

Asharani claimed a right through Jainara Appaiah Shetty in respect of specified suit property, and her relationship with the parties was not disputed.

The Court held that requiring documentary proof sufficient to establish her full claim at the impleadment stage was premature.

Given her prima facie claim and the need to resolve the relevant property dispute effectively and avoid further proceedings, she should be added as a party, without prejudging the merits of her claim.

In view of the suit’s age and the long-pending FDP, the Court also considered expedition appropriate.

It requested the Trial Court to conclude FDP No. 11/2023, as far as practicable, within one year from the next hearing date.

Asharani’s claim was confined to Items 1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11; the Trial Court could proceed with the remaining properties without awaiting adjudication of her claim to those items.

Both writ petitions were disposed of.