Purchasers and donees of disputed property are necessary parties when their absence would render the decree ineffective.

The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

In his written statement, defendant no. 1 stated that he had sold portions of the suit property to relatives and gifted a portion to his wife.

The plaintiff applied under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to add the purchasers and donee as parties.

The Trial Court rejected the application, citing delay: the plaintiff had known of the transfers since 2009, but applied in 2022, after evidence had been adduced and arguments had commenced. The plaintiff challenged that order in revision.

Whether the purchasers and donee of portions of the suit property were necessary parties to the suit

Whether the plaintiff’s delay in seeking their impleadment justified refusing the application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC

The Court applied Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which empowers the Court to add a party whose presence is necessary to enable it to effectively and completely adjudicate the questions in the suit.

A person whose interest in the property is such that an effective decree cannot be passed in their absence is a necessary party. The judgment cites no precedent.

The Court found that defendant no. 1 had transferred parts of the suit property by sale and gift.

Because the purchasers and donee held interests in the property in dispute, their presence was necessary for an effective decree. The Court therefore held that their impleadment should have been allowed notwithstanding the delay.

It addressed that delay by directing the plaintiff to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to defendant no. 1.

The Trial Court was directed to add them as defendants and allow them to file written statements within the statutory period, adduce evidence, and participate in the proceedings.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 in costs to defendant no. 1.

CAN 1 of 2026, seeking an extension of the interim stay, was disposed of.