I Rule 10 can be invoked not only by the parties to the suit but by the court suo moto. But the court can act only when some circumstances are brought to its notice by some party to show that it is necessary to implead some other party also'.
I respectfully agree with the observations that the court can implead a third parly if it is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle the questions involved.
(8) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further refers to Satish Chand Gupta v. Sarvesh Chand Gupta and others, 1984 (26) Dlt 186 where it has been observed as follows :
'AFTER considering these cases, it appears to me that it will depend upon the facts of each case whether a person is a proper party or a necessary party so that he may be allowed to be added as a party'.
(9) I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit and thereforee the trial court ought not to have directed him to be imp leaded as a defendant. The trial court has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in considering the scope of a suit for injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the structures when such suits are prohibited under Section 343(4) of the Act.
(10) The revision petition is accepted setting aside the impugned order impleading respondent No. 2 as a defendant. Respondent No. 2 shall also pay costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300.00 .