Summary
The Supreme Court refused impleadment of rival claimants asserting that they were the persons named as defendants in two specific-performance suits. The plaintiffs had chosen to litigate against particular individuals and bore the risk that their suits or execution might fail if those individuals lacked the asserted contractual connection. On these facts, the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties and could pursue independent proceedings, including any claim of collusion.
Issues
- Whether rival identity claimants were necessary or proper parties to the specific-performance suits.
- Whether the identity dispute had to be determined within those suits against the plaintiffs’ chosen defendants.
Held
- The plaintiffs, as dominus litis, had chosen particular defendants. If no cause of action or contractual connection existed against those persons, the suits or execution proceedings could fail; that was the plaintiffs’ litigation risk. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Applicants asserting that they were the persons referred to in the suits could pursue independent proceedings against the defendants or plaintiffs, including allegations of collusion. In these suits the plaintiffs asserted no lis against the applicants. (¶¶ 6, 8, 9)
- The precedent permitting participation by prima facie co-owners was distinguishable on its facts. This decision did not establish an absolute prohibition on third-party impleadment in every specific-performance suit. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties in the present adjudication. The Division Bench decision was set aside and the Single Judge’s rejection of the applications restored. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Appeals allowed. Division Bench judgment set aside; Single Judge’s orders rejecting impleadment applications restored.