It is Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with parties to the suit

Under Order 1 Rule 10 Sub rule

(2) Court may strike out or add parties.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon
or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order
that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that
the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose
presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the court to add or substitute 

1. Any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings

It is open to a court to add a party as a defendant in a suit under Sec.92 of CPC(Public

There are two types of persons who may be added as a party to the suit Necessary parties
and Proper parties. 

1. Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of revenue on 19

“A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively'; a proper party is one in
whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final
decision on the question involved in the proceeding.”

2. Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation on 4 March, 1992  SCC (2)

Rule 10 specifically provides that it is open to the Court to add at any stage of the suit a necessary party
or a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to
effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

Sub-rule(2) of Rule 10 gives a wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties and
is not affected by the inaction of the plaintiff to bring the necessary parties on record. The question of
impleadment of a party has to be decided on the touch stone of Order I Rule 10 which provides that
only a necessary or a proper party may be added. A necessary party is one without whom no order can
be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose
presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.

3. Panne Khushali And Anr. vs Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik And Anr. on 25 November, 1975
AIR 1976 MP 148
5. The forequoted Sub-rule (1) relates to the addition of parties as plaintiffs only and therefore, it is not
relevant in the instant case. The only relevant provision for answering the question before us is Sub-
rule (2). In the forequoted Sub-rule (2) the two expressions (i) "who ought to have been joined" and (ii)
"whose presence before the Court may be necessary" indicate that there are two categories of parties :
(a) necessary party as indicated by the expression "ought to have been joined" and (b) proper party as
indicated by the expression "whose presence before the Court may be necessary". The Court has no
jurisdiction or power to add a person as a party who is neither a necessary party nor a proper party.
4. Gujarat Housing Board, Ahmedabad vs Nagajibhai Laxmanbhai And Ors. on 19
September, 1985

A. D. Desai, J., In Civil Revn. Applns Nos. 117 of 1970 and 118 of 1970, decided on 16-7-1970, after
referring to the relevant provision of Order 1, rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, has observed in this
behalf as under:

"The application were made by the Gujarat Housing Board under Order, 1 rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code with gives a discretion to the Court to joint any person as a party to the suit in cases
where such a person ought to have been joined or where presence of such person in necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon the settle all the questions involved
in the case. The leaned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the Gujarat Housing Board was a proper
party of the suit because there were allegations in the plaint to the effect that the activities of the
Gujarat Housing Board was joined as a party needless multiplicity of the suit will be avoided. It is also
observed by the leaned trial Judge that the plaintiff was not likely to be prejudiced in any way if the
Gujarat Housing Board was joined as a defendant tin the suits. Now, there is no dispute before me that
the Gujarat Housing Board is not a necessary party.

5.Mumbai International Airport Ltd vs Regency Convention Centra & Hotel on 6

The Division Bench held that the appellant did not make out that he was a necessary party and the
application merely disclosed that he was only claiming to be a proper party; that the appellant's claim
was not based on a present demise but a future expectation based on spes successionis; and that
therefore, the impleadment of appellant either as a necessary party or proper party or formal party was
not warranted. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The question for
consideration is whether the appellant is a necessary or proper party to the suit for specific
performance filed by the first respondent.

The said provision makes it clear that a court may, at any stage of the proceedings (including suits for
specific performance), either upon or even without any application, and on such terms as may appear to
it to be just, direct that any of the following persons may be added as a party: (a) any person who ought
to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant, but not added; or (b) any person whose presence before
the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon
and settle the question involved in the suit. In short, the court is given the discretion to add as a party,
any person who is found to be a necessary party or proper party. A `necessary party' is a person who
ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by
the Court. If a `necessary party' is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A
`proper party' is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable
the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in disputes in the suit,
though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made.

6.Anil Kumar Singh vs Shivnath Mishra And Gadasa Guru on 24 October, 1994

10. A person may be added as a party defendant to the suit though no relief may be claimed against
him/her provided his/her presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question
involved in the suit. Such a person is only a proper party as distinguished from a necessary party.
7.Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958

In the forefront of his arguments in support of the appeal, the learned Attorney-General submitted that
the court had no jurisdiction to add the first two respondents as defendants in the suit. He relied upon
the words of the relevant portion of sub-rule (2) of r. 10 of O. I of the Code, which are as follows:

" (2)............... and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to-enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

He rightly pointed out, and there was no controversy between the parties before us, that the added
defendants do not come within the purview of the words " who ought to have been joined ", which
apparently have reference to necessary parties in the sense that the suit cannot be effectively disposed
of without their presence on the record.