ORDER : (M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.) The petitioner/plaintiff No.1(a) is before this Court calling question an order dated 22-01-2025 passed by the XIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.25 in O.S.No.3277 of 2013 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the array of defendants. 2. Heard Sri K. N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.3277 of 2013 seeking declaration that the decree passed in O.S.No.5801 of 2000 dated 01-02-2002 as illegal and void and seeks cancellation of the same. The issue in the lis is not with regard to merit of the claim of the plaintiffs. In the proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC seeking impleadment of defendant No.38 into the array of defendants was filed. The said application comes to be allowed on consent of plaintiffs themselves. After allowing of the said application, the plaintiffs again file an application in I.A.No.25 seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the array of parties. This application comes to be rejected. It is this order that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that defendant No.38 had agreed to support the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not object to his entry at the outset. After coming in as defendant No.38, he has filed his written statement opposing them. Therefore, the plaintiffs now want defendant No.38 be deleted from the proceedings, because he is neither necessary nor proper party and seek further proceedings before the concerned Court be stalled on the said score. 5. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass and are a matter of record. A suit in O.S.No.5801 of 2000 is decreed by way of a compromise in terms of the compromise decree dated 1-02-2002. This is called in question by present plaintiffs in O.S.No.3277 of 2013. As observed, the issue in the lis is not with regard to merit of the matter. An application is filed seeking to implead as a party into the proceedings. The concerned Court passes an order allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The reason rendered in the order reads as follows: “10. As observed, the issue in the lis is not with regard to merit of the matter. An application is filed seeking to implead as a party into the proceedings. The concerned Court passes an order allowing the application filed under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The reason rendered in the order reads as follows: “10. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is also claiming share in the suit schedule properties as a heir of H.Ramaiah. The presence of the applicant in P.Mis. proceedings was not necessary as per the said proceedings question involved is whether the plaintiffs can be granted the permission to sue as in forma pauperis. Now the leave is granted and suit is filed, and the applicant also claims the right in the property similar to that of the plaintiffs contending that he is also legal heir of late H.Ramaiah and he is entitled for share in the suit properties and he has instituted the proceedings in P.Mis No.584 of 2003. These facts are not disputed by the plaintiff. Therefore, presence of the applicant in this proceeding is necessary and therefore he is a proper party to the suit. 11.The applicant can proceed with his petition in P.Mis. No.584 of 2003 and prosecute the suit. But this suit has to be decided in his presence as the plaintiff has not denied the genealogy tree produced by the applicant and the records clearly show that the applicant is also claiming the right over the suit properties. Hence, this Court holds that the applicant is a proper party to this proceeding. Hence, this Court answered point No.1 as above. 12. Point No.2: In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The I.A.No.I filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC is allowed with no order as to costs. The applicant is ordered to be impleaded as the defendant No.38. To carry out the amendment and for amended plaint and for hearing on the pending applications by 27.07.2022.” The concerned Court holds that presence of the impleading applicant was necessary, as the question involved was whether the plaintiffs can be granted permission to sue in forma pauperis and the plaintiffs therein had not denied the genealogical tree produced by the impleading applicant, who also claimed a right over the suit schedule property. 6. 6. After allowing of the application, defendant No.38 files his written statement. Thereafter, the subject application comes to be preferred by the plaintiffs under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for deletion of defendant No.38 from the array of defendants. The said application in I.A.No.25 comes to be rejected. The reason for rejection is that the Court had earlier on the submissions made by the respective parties had observed that defendant No.38 also had a claim in the suit schedule property and, therefore, he was proper and necessary party. After having allowed him to come on record, the plaintiffs have not made out any ground, now to seek his deletion. The reasons so rendered read as follows: “Point No.1 : The suit of the plaintiff is to declare that the decree passed in O.S.No.5801 of 2000 is illegal and void and therefore to declare plaintiffs are entitled for suit property and entitled for recovery of suit property, which are the Indian and foreign assets relating to deceased Hiresave H Ramaiah. This application is filed by the plaintiff to delete the defendant No.38 on the ground that the defendant No.38 has withdrawn the counter claim and that he is not a necessary party to the case in hand. By virtue of the order passed by this Court on the interlocutory application filed by this defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC this court as come to a conclusion that the defendant No.38 is necessary party to the case in hand as on 6-07-2022. No doubt the said application has withdrawn is counter claim. But that does not deviate the order impleading him to the present case. Further the defendant No.38 no doubt has not filed the court fee in respect of the counter claim raised by him. But, the court is not precluded from directing the defendant No.38 to pay the requisite court fee. Therefore, on this ground also the plaintiff has not made out any ground to delete the defendant No.38 from the suit. Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative. Point No.2: In furtherance of my findings to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER I.A..No.25 filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the suit is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is further directed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting the present case in hand. Point No.2: In furtherance of my findings to point No.1, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER I.A..No.25 filed by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC seeking deletion of defendant No.38 from the suit is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff is further directed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting the present case in hand. Hence, plaintiff is directed to proceed with the case in hand. For steps if any, to bring LRs of deceased defendant if by, by 27-01-2025.” If both the orders – one allowing defendant No.38 to come on record and the impugned order which rejects deletion, are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is, a person who has been impleaded into the proceedings on the score of him having a right in the suit schedule property, cannot be sought to be deleted from the array of defendants, more so, in the light of the fact that the order which permitted him to come on record has become final, as the plaintiffs have not challenged the same, but have amended the cause title. 7. In that light, finding no perversity in the order that would entail entertainment of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petition stands rejected. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2025 also stands disposed.