Affidavit-supported heirship certificates suffice for impleadment; issuing authorities need not be summoned for proof.

The plaintiff obtained an ex parte decree in Title Suit No. 277 of 2010.

The defendants appealed in Title Appeal No. 138 of 2012.

During the appeal, the plaintiff sought to implead persons alleged to be the legal heirs of Renuka Bhandari, an original plaintiff who had died, and of her deceased children.

An earlier impleadment application was rejected; in a prior revision, the High Court dismissed the challenge but granted liberty to renew the application with supporting documents.

The plaintiff filed a fresh application supported by a municipal certificate identifying the alleged heirs.

The First Appellate Court rejected it, doubting the certificate’s authenticity and observing that the alleged heirs could themselves apply to be added.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting the application to implead the persons identified as legal heirs of an original plaintiff.

2. Whether the supporting certificates required proof by the issuing authorities before they could be considered on an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to add a party whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the questions involved; Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers.

The judgment states no separate precedent or further doctrinal test.

It holds that, in deciding an impleadment application supported by an affidavit and documents, the court must give reasons for declining to rely on those documents, and proof by the issuing authority is not required in the circumstances of this case.

The application specifically asserted that the persons named were heirs of Renuka Bhandari’s deceased children, and the assertion was not specifically denied.

The First Appellate Court neither found that the proposed parties were not legal heirs nor explained why it rejected the supporting certificates.

Its doubts about authenticity, and its view that the proposed parties should apply on their own, did not justify rejecting the plaintiff’s application; the certificates had been submitted for consideration of an impleadment request supported by an affidavit, and there was no occasion to summon their issuing authorities for proof at that stage.

It directed that the persons named in the application be added as legal heirs of the original plaintiff and that the First Appellate Court proceed with the appeal expeditiously in accordance with law.

The revision was disposed of.