Summary
The Supreme Court restored a trial court order impleading, under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, a purchaser claiming title under a probated will and a registered sale deed as a defendant in a suit for specific performance and injunction over the same property. The High Court, under Article 227, had set aside the impleadment by doubting the genuineness of the purchaser's transaction; the Supreme Court held that genuineness is for trial, that a person who is not a necessary party may still be a proper party whose presence enables effective adjudication, and that the plaintiff had not opposed the impleadment.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, could set aside a trial court order impleading the appellant as a defendant on the ground that the appellant's sale transaction and documents appeared doubtful.
- Whether a purchaser of the suit property from a probate holder, asserting an independent title, is a necessary or proper party to a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed by rival claimants and for declaration that the probate and the purchaser's sale deed are void.
- What is the scope of the court's discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to add a 'proper party' in a suit for specific performance.
Provisions considered
- Order I Rule 10(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The rule gives the court discretion at any stage, with or without application, to add any person who ought to have been joined or whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication. Following Mumbai International Airport, Kasturi and Sumtibai, a necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed; a proper party is one whose presence enables complete adjudication of all matters in dispute. The rule concerns judicial discretion, not a right of the non-party; a proper party may be impleaded unconditionally or on terms, or refused if the suit's nature would change. The appellant's presence was held required for effective adjudication. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33)
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction to set aside the impleadment order. The Supreme Court held it should not have interfered under Article 227, as the genuineness of the transaction and documents was a matter for trial. (¶¶ 17, 32)
Held
- A court has jurisdiction under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead a person found to be a necessary or proper party even against the wishes of the plaintiff; the rule does not confer a right on the non-party but vests a judicial discretion to be exercised according to reason and fair play, and different situations attract different facets of the rule. Kasturi and Sumtibai are not in conflict. (¶¶ 22, 24, 28)
- In a suit for specific performance, a non-party applicant found to be a proper party may be added as a defendant; if his addition would alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action the court may refuse, or implead him on terms, but it is not precluded from impleading a proper party unconditionally. No person can insist on impleadment merely because he is a proper party. (¶ 29)
- A third party who can show a fair semblance of title or interest in the contracted property may apply for impleadment in a suit for specific performance; it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that a third party can never be impleaded in such a suit. (¶¶ 26, 27)
- The High Court should not have interfered under Article 227 with the trial court's impleadment order by doubting the genuineness of the appellant's agreement and sale deed; the genuineness of the transaction and documents is to be examined in the course of trial. A party seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but can still be a proper party whose presence would enable the court to adjudicate all matters in dispute effectively and adequately. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
- The appellant's presence in the suit was required for proper and effective adjudication, particularly as the original plaintiff had not opposed the impleadment; the transaction between the probate holder and the appellant remains a subject matter of trial, with all contentions left open. (¶ 33)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court orders dated 12.06.2023 (Miscellaneous Petition No. 5567/2018) and 12.12.2023 (Review Petition No. 717/2023) set aside; trial court order dated 14.03.2018 impleading the appellant as defendant No. 8 restored; all contentions kept open for trial; pending applications disposed of.