CRP 428/2010 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 12.9.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Ka mrup, Guwahati in Misc (J) No.830/2009 rejecting the prayer of the present petit ioner for getting herself impleaded as a defendant in Title Suit No.308 of 200 8 instituted by the opposite party herein. Heard Mr S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr A. Borkakat i, learned counsel for the Opposite party. A brief reference to the facts leading to the filing of the instant peti tion is unavoidable. The petitioner had instituted Title Suit No.287/1997 in the court of Sad ar Munsiff, Guwahati against the opposite party herein, praying for a decree for his ejectment from the suit premises as described in the schedule to the plaint . The opposite party in his written statement having denied the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the suit premises, an application for amendment o f the plaint was made by her which was allowed. Accordingly, the plaint was amen ded. No additional written statement was filed by the opposite party. The suit was eventually dismissed on 28.8.2000. Apart from holding that the suit was bar red by time, the learned trial court returned a finding that the title of the pe titioner was doubtful and flouted. The appeal filed by the petitioner plaintiff being Title Appeal No.38/2001 also met the same fate. This was on 23.11.2006. S he thereafter preferred a second appeal before this Court. As the same was delay ed, an application for condonation thereof was filed along with the memorandum o f appeal. It is submitted at the Bar that the delay has meanwhile been condoned by this Court and that the second appeal is pending for admission . In the meantime, the opposite party instituted Title Suit No.308/2008 on 8.9.2000 in the court of the learned Civil Judge( Junior Division) No.1, Kamru p at Guwahati praying for a decree for declaration of his right, title and inter est in the same suit land on the basis of adverse possession thereof. As in the suit, the petitioner has not been impleaded as a defendant, she in the above fac tual background, submitted an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Code’) for adding her as defendant No.3 in the suit. The plaint of the Title Suit No.308/2008 dis closes that the State of Assam and the Settlement Officer, Guwahati Re-Settlemen t Operation, Guwahati were arrayed as defendant Nos 1 and 2 therein. The application of the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint was resisted b y the opposite party by filling written objection inter alia with the contention that as the issue bearing on the petitioner’s claim for right, tile and interes t had already been decided in two forums and as he is claiming the ownership th ereof on the basis of uninterrupted and continuous possession thereof without ac knowledging any superior title thereto, the prayer for amendment is misconceive d and ought to be rejected. It was pleaded that considering the issue to be de cided, the petitioner is not a necessary party in the litigation. The learned trial court on a consideration of the pleadings of the parti es sustained the objection raised on behalf of the opposite party. According to it, as the petitioner as on date has not been able to establish her right, title and interest in the suit land , she is not a necessary party in the suit and the prayer for amendment in the touchtone of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code is not entertainable in law and on facts. Mr Sarma has emphatically urged that as the second appeal before this Co urt against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 of the first appellate cour t dismissing Title Appeal No.8/2001 preferred by the petitioner is admittedly p ending , the impugned order if allowed to stand, would inevitably result in mul tiplicity of litigations and therefore the same needs to be interfered with. A ccording to him, as one of the avowed objectives of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Co de is to prevent the plethora of litigations otherwise avoidable and to strea mline the litigational controversy to an expeditious and logical end, the impugn ed order being opposed thereto is patently untenable and ought to be set aside. Even otherwise, Mr Sarma has urged that having regard to the materials on recor d, the petitioner is a necessary party in the suit and that if she is not allowe d to be impleaded in Title Suit No.308/2008, it would result in irreparable loss and prejudice to her. Mr Borkatoky in reply has urged that as admittedly as on date there is no declaration in favour of the petitioner as the owner of the suit land, she is certainly not a necessary party in the suit i.e. Title Suit No.308/08. In the a bove view of the matter, having regard to prerequisites embodied under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code, no interference with the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court is called for. According to him, the possibility of success of the petitioner in her second appeal is absolutely speculative and on that c ount alone, the prayer for amendment at this stage ought not to be entertained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the learned trial co urt ought to have taken note of the sequence of events earlier to the filing of the present suit. Noticeably, the learned courts below in the earlier round of l itigation, namely, Title Suit No.278/1997 and Title Appeal No.38/2001 though had not categorically declared the right, title and interest of the petitioner in the suit land parted with the issue with the observation that her claim for tit le was clouded and doubtful. Be that as it may, as the petitioner is presently before this Court with an app eal assailing the legality of the findings of the learned courts below, logicall y, the issue bearing on her title remains to be reexamined by this court, howe ver, within the permissible limits prescribed by section 100 of the Code. Incid entally, the prayer for adducing additional evidence pertaining to her title which has since been negated by the learned lower appellate court, would also su rface for consideration in the second appeal. Though it is difficult at this s tage to predict the outcome of the second appeal, in the comprehension of thi s court, having regard to the opposite party’s plea in support of his claim for a decree for title on the ground of the adverse possession, it is considered appropriate that the petitioner ought to be impleaded in Title Suit No.308/2008 so as to prevent multiplicity of litigations. In case, the second appeal filed by her before this court is allowed, the issue with regard to her title vis a vi s the opposite party would be left either open or decided in her favour. In such an eventuality, if the suit filed by the opposite party i.e. Tile Suit No.308/2 008 is proceeded in her absence, not only the same would result in multiplicity of litigations, but also may lead to conflict of judicial decisions. On the ot her hand, if the petitioner is impleaded as a defendant in the suit, all such po ssibilities can assuredly be avoided. As one of the purposes of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code is unmistakably to pr event profusion of litigation , in the opinion of this court, in the singular factual background of this case, her prayer for impleadment needs to be allowed . This court for obvious reason at this stage makes no observation with regard to the rival claims on merits. In the above view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned o rder dated 12.9.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwhati in Mis c(J) Case No.830/2009 is interfered with. The learned trial court would permit impleadment of the petitioner as a defendant in the suit. No costs.