Allegations alone do not make an officer a necessary or proper party under Order I Rule 10(2).

The petitioner-plaintiff sued for a declaration of her claimed rights as the sole legal heir of her deceased father and over the suit properties, and for a declaration that a Surviving Family Members Certificate dated 16 January 2021 was null and void.

Defendant No. 8, who had served as Tahsildar, Khanapur, applied under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to be removed from the suit, denying that she issued the certificate or certified the disputed mutation entries; the certificate appeared to bear the digital signature of the Deputy Tahsildar.

The Trial Court allowed the application and deleted her name.

The plaintiff challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether defendant No. 8 was a proper party under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to the plaintiff’s suit.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s order deleting defendant No. 8’s name warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits a court to strike out an improperly joined party and to add a person whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate and settle the questions in the suit.

Allegations in a plaint, by themselves, do not make a person a necessary or proper party; the relevant test is whether that person’s presence is required for effective and complete adjudication.

The High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not warrant interference absent illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the order under challenge.

The dispute concerned the plaintiff’s claimed rights in the suit properties and the validity and effect of the certificate and consequential mutation entries.

Defendant No. 8 claimed no interest in the properties, denied issuing the certificate, and was not shown to have certified the entries; the certificate appeared to bear the Deputy Tahsildar’s digital signature.

The plaintiff’s allegation of defendant No. 8’s involvement, without further material showing her presence was necessary, did not satisfy the Order I Rule 10(2) test.

The certificate’s issuance or validity could be considered by reference to the relevant records and competent officer, without defendant No. 8 being indispensable to the adjudication.

The Trial Court’s decision therefore disclosed no ground for supervisory interference.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.