JUDGMENT 1. - By the impugned order dated 24.04.2009, the application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC of the applicant-petitioner Smt. Kamla seeking her impleadment in the suit filed by her husband for damages for claiming compensation for the alleged medical negligence has been rejected. 2. Learned trial court while rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has given the reason that since the application has been filed belatedly with a delay of three years from the date of filing of the said suit at this stage and so also when defendant's evidence is going on and, therefore, the applicant cannot be impleaded in the suit as party. 3. The reason for which, the applicant sought to be impleaded herself in the present suit was that she is not in good terms with her husband, plaintiff-claimant, and therefore, she could not join the present suit filed for compensation on account of death of their son due to alleged medical negligence. She, however, was also equally entitled to said compensation as her husband was and, therefore, she should be impleaded in the said suit to have right of say in the matter. 4. Mr. M.L. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Doctor, opposed the said petition on the ground, inter-alia, that the application was highly belated while the suit was filed by the father of the deceased and he can pursue the same and it is not necessary to implead the mother of a party in the said suit. 5. Having perused the averments made in the writ petition and having heard learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that impleadment of the applicant-petitioner in the present suit would have reduced the multiplicity of the litigation. If the applicant-petitioner and claimant-plaintiff (Husband of the petitioner) are not at good terms, she may have to sue her husband later on if such compensation is awarded in favour of plaintiff-claimant. Her application to join the fray before the learned trial court should have been decided in that perspective and it cannot be said that she has no interest in the present lis. She is not only necessary but a proper party also and, therefore, deserves to be impleaded in the said suit. The question whether she would be allowed to lead further evidence or not, is the discretion of the trial court. She is not only necessary but a proper party also and, therefore, deserves to be impleaded in the said suit. The question whether she would be allowed to lead further evidence or not, is the discretion of the trial court. However, at this stage her right to be impleaded in the present suit cannot be non-suited. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed, and setting aside the impugned order dated 24.04.2009, the application filed by the applicant-petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is allowed. The learned trial court is accordingly requested to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. No costs. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioner forthwith.Petition allowed. *******