N.N. Goswamy, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26-5-1982 passed by the learned trial Judge whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the petitioners were directed to be imp leaded as party defendants.
2. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation. The prayer in the said suit is, as follows:-
'It is, thereforee, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Corporation through its officers, staff, agents, representatives etc. be restrained from demolishing, removing, breaking, defacing the illuminated neon sign and hoardings displays existing on the sites of 10'x20' and 10'X 10' (10'x30') each facing Delhi Gate side and Red Fort side to a total of 600 Sq. ft. at 29, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-2, or the ones to be replaced in due course of time at the above sites and from taking any other action in respect of the said illuminated neon sign and hoarding displays.'
3. The aforesaid relief was claimed on the basis that the provisions of advertisement illuminated neon sign and hoardings sign board as contained in the Municipal Corporation Act under Section 143 of the Bye-laws framed therein pertain to the land belonging to the Municipal Corporation and the same are not applicable to the sites of the private land. It was further alleged in the application that no permission for putting up the illuminated neon sign hoardings, panels on the aforesaid sites is required under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act. The plaintiff in that suit was able to get an ad-interim injunction against the Municipal Corporation from demolishing or removing the said hoardings. During the course of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The main prayer in the application was that the present petitioners who are the tenants in the premises should be imp leaded as parties. It was alleged in the application that M/s. Usha Sales Ltd. and M/s. Rajasthan Industrial Distributors, M/s. Kirpal Singh Avtar Singh, Shri Kirpal Singh and Shri Avtar Singh have joined hands with a view to deprive the plaintiff of their lawful right and have filed a collusive suit for injunction without impleading the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as a party in the said suit. It was further alleged that their presence as parties is otherwise necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties.
4. I have been taken through the plaint in the suit as also the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. The application of the plaintiff was opposed by the petitioner herein on the grounds that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against the petitioners and also that no specific amendments have been indicated in the application, which was mandatory requirement. The learned trial Judge, however, allowed the application to the extent that the parties were directed to be imp leaded though there is no direction regarding the amendment of the plaint. In fact, the prayer, for amendment, is deemed to have been rejected, and what has been allowed is only the impleading of the parties including the petitioner. It is against this order' that the present revision petition has been filed. Counsel for respondents 2 to 4 has appeared and has supported the petitioner. The petition has only been contested by respondent No. 1.
5. It cannot be disputed that the Court has ample powers under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure to add parties to the suit but the same can only be done if the presence of the said party is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In other words, the Court may add necessary or proper parties to the suit. It is well-settled that necessary parties are one without whom no order can be made effectively and proper parties are one in whose absence an order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. It is also not necessary that only such party can be joined against whom some specific relief is claimed. However, it is absolutely necessary that the presence of the party should be essential to effectively decide the controversy in the suit.
6. In Banarsi Dasa v. Panna Lal A.I.R. 1969 P&H; 61, Sarkaria, J., as his lordship then was, took the view that the powers given to the High Court under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are confined only to two cases namely (1) when a party ought to have been joined but has not been joined as a party, that is, when he is a necessary party and (2) when without the presence of the applicant the questions in the suit cannot be completely decided. The learned judge went on to the length of holding that there is no jurisdiction to add a party in any other case merely because that would save a third person the expense and botheration of a separate suit for seeking adjudication of a collateral matter. This judgment was approved in a later case of the same High Court reported as Kaka Singh v. Rohi Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1978 P&H; 30.
7. Applying the aforesaid principles which are well-settled, all that is required to see is the plaint for the purpose of knowing if it is necessary for the decision of the controversy to add the petitioner or respondents 2 to 4 as parties to the suit. As I have already indicated the controversy in suit is narrow one and is confined to the interpretation of Section 143 of the Municipal Corporation Act and the powers of the Corporation under the Bye-laws. No relief is claimed against any other party, particularly, against the petitioner. No cause of action is disclosed against the petitioner. Accordingly 1 am of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has acted without jurisdiction in impleading the petitioner as a party respondent to the suit.
8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is allowed and the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 and order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby dismissed. I am exercising my revisional powers regarding quashing the order in respect of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 also though they have not challenged the order independently. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.