The Supreme Court of India in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1999 SC 976 :  1 SCR 725 : (1999) 2 SCC 577 : JT 1999 (1) SC 643 : 1999 (1) SCALE 516 : (1999) II MLJ 110 (SC) : (1999) 2 CALLT 38 (SC) held that avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings was one of the objects of order I Rule 10 CPC. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held that respondents 3 to 5 were necessary and proper parties to the suit and their impleadment was warranted.
A bench comprising of Chief Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice S.N. Phukan observed that if the application for impleadment was thrown out Respondents 3 to 5 would certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights.
Necessary and Proper Parties
The appellant plaintiff filed a civil suit against her four sons for a decree of maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. By consent of parties, civil court passed an interim order directing parties not to transfer the suit property in favour of any person till disposal of the suit.
Thereafter the first defendant sold one fourth share of three parcels of land comprising the suit property each to Respondents 3 to 5 by registered sale deeds. Respondents 3 to 5 then applied to the civil court for being impleaded as parties to the suit.
The plaintiff resisted this on the ground that the sales were in breach of the order of injunction and that the transferees got no valid title to the suit properties. The trial court allowed the application of Respondents 3 to 5 and directed them to be impleaded as parties to the suit.
The District Court in revision and the High Court in a further writ petition filed by the appellant upheld the order of the trial court.
Case Law Reference
- Khemchand Shankar Choudhari v. Vishnu Han Patil,  1 SCC 18
- Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay,  2 SCC 524
- Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum,  SCR 1111
- Surjit Singh v. Harbans Singh,  6 SCC 50