As per case facts, the appellant, a divorced wife of the tenant (second respondent), sought to be added as a party defendant in an ejectment suit filed by the landlady ... (first respondent) against her ex-husband. She claimed a direct interest in the tenanted premises due to her entitlement to maintenance, which included residence, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. Her application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was dismissed by the trial court and subsequently upheld by the High Court, leading to this appeal. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant, in her capacity as a divorced wife, had a right to be impleaded as a necessary or proper party defendant in the ejectment suit. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that a court lacks jurisdictional power to add a person who is neither a necessary nor a proper party. It concluded that the appellant, as a divorcee, could not claim an independent interest or an interest through her ex-husband in the suit premises, and therefore, her presence was not essential for the court to effectively adjudicate and pass a decree, dismissing her appeal.