A subsequent encroachment gives rise to a separate suit, not impleadment in the pending action.

Respondents 1 and 2, plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead MGP Builders and others, alleging that MGP Builders owned adjacent property and was attempting to encroach on the suit property by relying on certain documents.

The trial court allowed the application. MGP Builders challenged that order under Section 115 CPC, contending that it was not a necessary or proper party to the suit.

Whether MGP Builders was a necessary or proper party to the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration and permanent injunction, such that it could be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

Whether the plaintiffs’ allegation of encroachment arising during the suit could be pursued by impleading MGP Builders in that suit, or instead required an independent proceeding.

The Court considered Order I Rule 10 CPC, which governs the addition of parties to a suit, and Section 115 CPC, under which the revision petition was brought.

It applied the necessary-or-proper-party inquiry, holding that a party with no claim to the suit property and whose alleged conduct gives rise to a separate cause of action is not to be added to the pending suit on that basis.

The Court noted that MGP Builders admittedly claimed no right over the suit property and that the plaintiffs’ grievance concerned alleged encroachment said to have occurred during the suit’s pendency.

It held that this allegation gave rise to a separate cause of action against the alleged encroachers, rather than making MGP Builders a necessary or proper party to the existing suit.

The trial court’s decision to implead MGP Builders was therefore found to suffer from perversity warranting revisionary interference.

It clarified that the plaintiffs could pursue any individual grievance against MGP Builders independently in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded, and the connected CMP was closed.