Order I Rule 10 CPC — Impleadment of parties
Power under Order I Rule 10 CPC can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied that the person sought to be added is either a necessary party, without whom no effective decree can be passed, or a proper party, whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
(Paras 11–12, 14)
Subsequent purchaser pendente lite — Doctrine of lis pendens
Transfer of property during pendency of a suit is governed by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the subsequent purchaser is bound by the outcome of the suit even if not impleaded as a party.
(Paras 14, 17)
Impleadment not automatic — Judicial discretion
Though a subsequent purchaser may be a proper party, impleadment is not automatic and depends on judicial discretion to be exercised on the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Paras 14, 16)
Vague pleadings — Failure to disclose particulars
Where the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC does not disclose the nature, date, or particulars of the alleged document and no copy is produced, such impleadment application is vague and devoid of merit.
(Paras 4–6)
Effect of non-impleadment — No prejudice
Even assuming execution of a document pendente lite, non-impleadment of the subsequent purchaser does not cause prejudice to the plaintiffs, as the document remains subject to the result of the suit.
(Para 6)
Dominus litis — Limitations
The principle of dominus litis does not permit impleadment of parties who are neither necessary nor proper parties merely because they may be incidentally affected by the outcome of the suit.
(Paras 16–17)
Article 227 — Scope of interference
Where the Trial Court has exercised discretion judiciously while rejecting an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the High Court will not interfere unless perversity, illegality, or material irregularity is shown.
(Paras 10, 17)
ANALYSIS
The Civil Revision Petition was filed challenging the order dated 06-03-2025 passed in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018, whereby the Trial Court dismissed an application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the proposed party as defendant No.7 (Paras 1–2).
The suit O.S.No.3 of 2018 was instituted for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and correction of revenue records in respect of the plaint schedule property (Para 3). During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs sought impleadment of the proposed party alleging execution of a nominal deed by defendant No.2 in his favour (Para 4).
The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to furnish particulars of the alleged document, including its nature and date, and did not annex a copy thereof, rendering the application vague (Paras 4–6). It further held that even if such a document existed, it would be subject to the result of the suit and non-impleadment would not prejudice the plaintiffs (Para 6).
Before the High Court, the plaintiffs relied upon admissions in the additional written statement regarding execution of a Registered Sale Deed dated 05-11-2018 in favour of the proposed party and contended that he was a necessary and proper party (Paras 7, 13).
The High Court examined the scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC and reiterated the distinction between necessary parties and proper parties, emphasizing that impleadment depends upon judicial discretion (Paras 11–14). The Court applied the Doctrine of Lis Pendens and held that a subsequent purchaser pendente lite is bound by the decree even if not impleaded (Paras 14, 17).
Relying on precedents including M/s. J.N. Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan, Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. v. Alok Kumar Lodha, and Banarsi Dass v. Panna Lal, the Court held that a person cannot be added merely because he may be incidentally affected by the outcome of the suit (Paras 16–17).
Finding no perversity or illegality in the Trial Court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition and vacated the interim stay (Paras 17–18).
RATIO DECIDENDI
A subsequent purchaser of property during pendency of a suit, whose rights are governed by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is not a necessary party to a suit for declaration of title and injunction; such purchaser cannot be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 CPC merely because he may be incidentally affected by the decree, and rejection of impleadment in such circumstances does not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment