ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 16.12.2019 in I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 passed by the 1st respondent-The Telangana Co-operative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and to set aside the same. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent Tribunal dismissed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 filed by the petitioner herein seeking to implead him as 3rd respondent in the appeal. 3. Heard Sri. V.N. Prashanth, learned counsel representing Smt. S. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for the 2nd respondent, Sri. M. Venkat Diwakar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Mantha Rajendra, learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7. 4. The facts that led to file the present writ petition are as follows: “Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) read with Rule 7 of the Telangana Cooperative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the Rules), vide CTA No. 2 of 2019 challenging the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 in R.C. No. 894/2012-Hsg, issued by the 2nd respondent herein. Vide the said proceedings, Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein were disqualified for a period of two consecutive terms from contesting the election or cooption under Section 21 AA (1) of the Act. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein preferred the above said appeal raising several grounds and sought to set aside the said proceedings in RC No. 894/2012-Hsg dated 10.12.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent herein. The said appeal was pending before the 1st respondent Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner herein, a member of the 3rd respondent Society, filed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 seeking to implead him as 3rd respondent in the appeal.” 5. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents 4 to 7 herein, appellants in CTA No. 2 of 2019, have no merits and to drag on the proceedings, filed the said appeal. He further contends that he is a member of the 3rd respondent Society and interested in the welfare of the Society. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondents 4 to 7 herein, appellants in CTA No. 2 of 2019, have no merits and to drag on the proceedings, filed the said appeal. He further contends that he is a member of the 3rd respondent Society and interested in the welfare of the Society. Respondents 4 to 7 are making false and frivolous allegations without any evidence in the appeal and as such he is a necessary and proper party in CTA No. 2 of 2019 to bring out the real facts. With the said contentions, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 178 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 to impelad him as 3rd respondent in the appeal. 6. The 3rd respondent Society filed counter opposing the relief sought in the present writ petition contending that there are 450 members in the 3rd respondent Society and only the petitioner filed the application seeking impleadment in the appeal. The petitioner, being the member of the Society, has no locus-standi to implead in the appeal. In an appeal under Section 76 of the Act, the Tribunal will consider the legality of the impugned proceedings therein basing on the record produced before the Tribunal. The petitioner is not an affected party. Reliance was placed by the 3rd respondent on the principle held by the Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daman Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1985 SC 973 . In the said judgment it was held that once a person becomes a member of a Cooperative Society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. In the present case, the 3rd respondent Society is on record and contesting the appeal by producing the record. 7. Respondents 4 to 7 have also filed counter with almost the very same contentions raised by the 3rd respondent. Respondents 4 to 7 have also relied upon the very same principle held by the Apex Court in the very same judgment. 8. 7. Respondents 4 to 7 have also filed counter with almost the very same contentions raised by the 3rd respondent. Respondents 4 to 7 have also relied upon the very same principle held by the Apex Court in the very same judgment. 8. Vide order dated 16.12.2019, the 1st respondent Tribunal dismissed the I.A. No. 178 of 2019, holding that the petitioner failed to establish as to how he is aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2018 and the validity of the impugned proceedings issued under Section 21 AA (1) of the Act will be decided by the Tribunal basing on the material available on record after hearing the parties. Even without adding the petitioner as party, the appeal would be adjudicated effectively and completely. 9. With the said findings, the Tribunal dismissed the said I.A. Assailing the same, the present writ petition is filed. 10. Sri. V.N. Prashanth, learned counsel representing Smt. S. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the said CTA No. 2 of 2019. He would further submit that an interim order was passed on 23.01.2019 in I.A. No. 16 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 suspending the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2018. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent filed any counter in I.A. No. 16 of 2019 and they are not assisting the Tribunal properly. An enquiry under Section 52 of the Act was conducted and report was submitted holding that the respondents 4 to 7 committed several irregularities. Basing on the said report, after issuing a show cause notice, the impugned proceedings dated 10.12.2018 were passed by the 2nd respondent disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 from contesting the elections for two consecutive terms. The said interim order dated 23.01.2019 was passed since the respondents 2 and 3 herein did not file any counter in the appeal and did not contest the same. By virtue of the said interim order, dated 23.01.2019, the respondents 4 to 7 herein have been continuing as the Managing Committee members of the 3rd respondent society. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for adjudication of the appeal since the petitioner being the member of the 3rd respondent Society would assist the Tribunal in disposing of the appeal effectively. 11. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for adjudication of the appeal since the petitioner being the member of the 3rd respondent Society would assist the Tribunal in disposing of the appeal effectively. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in the event of impleading the petitioner as 3rd respondent in the appeal, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents 4 to 7. On the other hand, prejudice would be caused to the petitioner being the member of the 3rd respondent Society since respondents 4 to 7, Managing Committee members of the 3rd respondent Society, committed several irregularities which were proved during enquiry under Section 52 of the Act. They have been continuing as members of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent Society under the guise of the interim order granted by the Tribunal. 12. In view of the said rival contentions, the point for consideration in the present writ petition is “whether the petitioner is entitled for impleadment in CTA No. 2 of 2019 as 3rd respondent?” 13. On perusal of the pleadings, the undisputed facts are as follows: “Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein are the Managing Committee members of the 3rd respondent Society. As there were allegations of misappropriation and mismanagement of the affairs of the Society on the executive Committee, an enquiry under Section 52 of the Act was ordered and a report was submitted. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings vide RC No. 894/2012-Hsg, dated 10.12.2018 under Section 21 AA of the Act, disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 from contesting the elections and cooption for the two consecutive terms. The respondents 4 to 7 preferred an appeal under Section 76 of the Act vide CTA No. 2 of 2019 raising several grounds. They have also filed I.A. No. 16 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 seeking to suspend the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent disqualifying them from contesting the elections for two consecutive terms. Vide order, dated 23.01.2019, the 1st respondent Tribunal allowed the said I.A. No. 16 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 and granted stay of the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 during the pendency of the proceedings. The appeal is posted for arguments.” 14. Vide order, dated 23.01.2019, the 1st respondent Tribunal allowed the said I.A. No. 16 of 2019 in CTA No. 2 of 2019 and granted stay of the proceedings dated 10.12.2018 during the pendency of the proceedings. The appeal is posted for arguments.” 14. According to learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the appeal was posted for reply arguments of both the parties and due to Covid-19, the Tribunal is not taking up the case. Once the Tribunal resumes the routine work, the main appeal will be decided on merits. 15. Section 76 of the Act deals with appeals. Any person or Society aggrieved by any decision passed or order made under Section 21 AA of the Act, may file an appeal under Section 76 of the Act. Admittedly, the proceedings in RC No. 894/2012-Hsg, dated 10.12.2018 are passed under Section 21 AA of the Act, by the 2nd respondent disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 from contesting the elections for two consecutive terms. The said appeal vide CTA No. 2 of 2019 was filed by the respondents 4 to 7 under Section 76 of the Act before the 1st respondent. The procedure for filing, numbering and dealing with the appeals is laid down under the Rules. As per the said procedure, the Tribunal will deal with the legality of the impugned proceedings in the appeal on perusal of the record and the contentions raised by the parties therein. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent i.e. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Secunderabad Division, who passed proceedings dated 10.12.2018 disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7, is a party to the appeal. He will be represented by the Presenting Officer who is also of the same rank. The Society i.e. Motinagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited is also 3rd respondent in the appeal. Several grounds were raised by respondents 4 to 7 herein in the said appeal. Therefore, the 1st respondent shall deal with the contentions raised by the parties and verify the record on production of the same before it and pass orders in accordance with Rule-20 of the Rules. 16. The proceedings dated 10.12.2018, disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 herein from contesting for two consecutive terms is passed by the 2nd respondent, basing on the findings of the enquiry under Section 52 of the Act. The said proceedings are under challenge before the Tribunal in CTA No. 2 of 2019. 16. The proceedings dated 10.12.2018, disqualifying the respondents 4 to 7 herein from contesting for two consecutive terms is passed by the 2nd respondent, basing on the findings of the enquiry under Section 52 of the Act. The said proceedings are under challenge before the Tribunal in CTA No. 2 of 2019. The Tribunal will examine the legality of the proceedings dated 10.12.2018. Any member including the petitioner of the 3rd respondent Society will have no role in adjudication of the said appeal. Admittedly, neither enquiry under Section 52 of the Act nor the impugned proceedings are at the instance of the petitioner. He is not party to the said proceedings. However, the 3rd respondent has already entered its appearance and contesting the appeal. Admittedly, there are 450 members in the 3rd respondent Society. Except the petitioner, no other member filed any impleadment application. The petitioner, being the member of the 3rd respondent Society loses his individuality and he will not have any independent right. He has to pursue with the 3rd respondent in which he is a member to defend the said appeal filed by respondents 4 to 7. He has no independent right to contest the appeal either on behalf of the Society or on his behalf individually. The said principle is held by a Five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Daman Singh’s case (supra). 17. Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC deals with impleadment of parties to proceedings. Normally, if any party claims interest in the proceedings, he will be added as a party to the said proceedings. The said provision is based on the “Doctrine of liberal construction” in the original proceedings. Whereas, in the present case, it is an appeal under Section 76 of the Act, wherein the legality of the impugned proceedings would be adjudicated, basing on the pleadings and the record. Any individual member has no role to implead himself or herself as party to the said appeal. The Five Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Daman Singh’s case (supra) while dealing with Sections 1, 13(8) and 30 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, more particularly, amalgamation of Cooperative Societies, held that once a person becomes a Member of Cooperative Society, he loses his individuality qua the society and he has no independent rights except those given to him by the statute and the by-laws. He must act and speak through the society or rather, the society alone can act and speak for him qua rights or duties of the society as a body. So, if the statute which authorizes compulsory amalgamation of cooperative societies provides for notice to the societies concerned, the requirement of natural justice is fully satisfied. The notice to the society will be deemed as notice to all its members. That is why Section 13(9)(a) provides for the issue of notice to the societies and not to individual members. Section 13(9)(b), however, provides the members also with an opportunity to be heard if they desire to be heard. Notice to individual members of a cooperative society, is opposed to the very status of the cooperative society as a body corporate and is, therefore, unnecessary. 18. In the present case also, the petitioner is claiming that he is the member of 3rd respondent Society. Therefore, once he becomes member of the 3rd respondent Society, he loses his individuality and he has no independent right except the rights given to him under the Act and the by-laws of the 3rd respondent society. He must act and speak through the 3rd respondent society. In the present case, in an appeal under Section 76 of the Act, if at all the petitioner wants to make any endeavor to assist the Tribunal, he has to do the same through the 3rd respondent by pursuing with the 3rd respondent Society in which he is a member. 19. It is apt to note that necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. Proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision. The intent of Legislature in bringing Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is where the parties failed to make any necessary and proper party as party to the proceedings, either due to ignorance or due to any other reason, it is for the Court to exercise its discretion under the said provision, so as to render full justice to the parties without expressing anything as to why it has not been done either by the parties or by the learned advocates as well. It enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision. 20. It is trite to note that the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC speak about judicial discretion of the Court to strike out or add parties at any stage of the suit/proceedings. It can strike out any party who is improperly joined, it can add any one as party if it finds that such person is a necessary or proper party. The Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code will, of course, act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. In Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadia vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) through LRs. and Others, 2018 (2) ALD 82 SC the Apex Court held that the expression “to settle all questions involved” used in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is susceptive to a liberal and wide interpretation, so as to adjudicate all the questions pertaining to the subject matter thereof. The parliament in its wisdom while forming this rule must be held to have thought that all material questions common to the parties to the suit and the third parties should be tried once for all. The court is clothed with the power to secure the aforesaid result with judicious discretion to add parties, including third parties. 21. As discussed supra, it is an appeal filed under Section 76 of the Act which will be decided on perusal of the record and pleadings. Therefore, the petitioner is neither a necessary party nor proper party to the appeal vide CTA No. 2 of 2019 pending on the file of the 1st respondent Tribunal. In view of the said authoritative principle, according to this Court, the petitioner is not a necessary party for adjudication of the said appeal i.e. CTA No. 2 of 2019. His impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is not necessary. More over, the appeal is coming for reply arguments of the parties, means, it is almost at the disposal stage. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the implead petition filed by the petitioner. His impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is not necessary. More over, the appeal is coming for reply arguments of the parties, means, it is almost at the disposal stage. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the implead petition filed by the petitioner. In view of the same, the petitioner failed to establish any ground or circumstance to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Thus, the writ petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.