Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Sulthan Said Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
Prakasan & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4307 of 2022)
Decided On : 23-05-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order I Rule 10(2) and Order XXII Rules 4 and 5 – Addition/deletion of parties in suit/appeal – Power to strike out or add a party to proceedings under Order I Rule 10 can be exercised by Court at any stage of proceeding – However, same cannot mean that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by Court and without any objections, party can approach Court anytime later and seek his deletion from array of parties by filing application under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Power to strike out or add parties can be exercised by Court on application made by parties before it, or upon application by a third party who desires to be added as a party, or even suo motu – If a question arises as regards whether any person is or is not legal representative of a deceased defendant then such a question shall be determined by Court. (Paras 45, 49 and 51)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Res Judicata – Principle of res judicata is essential in giving a finality to judicial decisions – Although a decision may be erroneous, yet it would bind parties to same litigation and concerning same issue, if it is rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction – Principle of res judicata applies also as between two stages in same litigation. (Paras 55 and 56)
(C) Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Both Courts below have arrived at conclusion that exclusive possession of suit property could be said to be with original defendant when suit was decreed – Relief of transfer of possession is implicit in decree for specific performance – Sale deed having already been executed in favour of the respondent, Executing Court shall proceed to ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of suit property is handed over to respondent in his capacity as decree holder as well as title holder of suit property – Appeal dismissed with costs of Rs 25,000/- to be paid by appellant and deposited with Legal Services Authority. (Paras 65, 67 and 68)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal arises from judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP(C) No. 2290 of 2013 whereby High Court dismissed the original petition filed by appellant and thereby affirmed the order passed by Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad in I.A. No. 2348/2012 in O.S. No. 617/1996 rejecting application filed by appellant seeking the deletion of his name from the array of parties.
Findings of Court:
High Court, as well as Trial Court, committed no error, much less any error of law, in arriving at their respective decisions.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of a property dispute involving performance of an agreement. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court affirms previous rulings and bar of res judicata. (Para 22 , 34) |
| 3. final disposition orders implementation of decrees. (Para 42 , 68) |
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The path to justice is often winding, shaped by the weight of hierarchy and the labyrinth of procedure. The seeker, weary yet resolute, climbs each rung of the judicial ladder, only to stand at the summit with hope overshadowed by the fear of denied relief. The respondent no. 1 before us embodies this relentless pursuit—a traveller in the quest for justice, yearning for its elusive embrace.
3. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP(C) No. 2290 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the original petition filed by the appellant and thereby affirmed the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Palakkad in I.A. No. 2348/2012 in O.S. No. 617/1996 rejecting the application filed by the appellant seeking the deletion of his name from the array of parties.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
4. The appellant is the grandson of one Late Jameela Beevi. Late Jameela Beevi was the original defendant in O.S. No. 617 of 1996, instituted by the respondent no. 1 herein (original plaintiff) before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.06.1996 executed between the original plaintiff and the original defendant, whereby the original defendant undertook to transfer the suit property to the original plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/-, upon payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/- within three months from the execution of the agreement. Pertinently, the appellant herein was one of the witnesses to the sale agreement.
5. The suit property, measuring 1 cent, situated in Keezhumuri Desom, Ward No. 3, Block 42, Survey No. 1895, Palakkad Town, Kerala, comprises of a tiled-roofed shop with walls on three sides and two shutters on the front side along with the land on which the shop stands. The same was purchased by the original defendant vide assignment deed dated 10.09.1976. It is noteworthy that clause 8 of the said deed if read with the property description indicates the factum of tenancy, inter alia, of one of the sons of the original defendant and the father of the appellant, Late Shahul Hameed. It is the case of the appellant that his father was a tenant of the suit property from 1969 till his death on 01.11.1992.
6. The case before us has a convoluted history and there have been delays at multiple stages of the proceedings. Despite having obtained an ex-parte decree way long back in 1998, and a final decree after contested hearing in 2003, the original plaintiff is yet to obtain the possession of the suit property. For the sake of clarity, we must look into and discuss the different stages wherein delay was caused under different headings so as to demonstrate how well the process of law can be abused by dubious litigants in this country.
Phase - I
7. The case of the original plaintiff before the Trial Court was that although he was always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration, yet the original defendant was not inclined towards executing the sale deed for the suit property. As the original defendant failed to execute the sale deed within a period of three months from the date of entering into the agreement, despite issuing a legal notice, he instituted a suit for specific performance.
8. The O.S. No. 617/1996 instituted by the original plaintiff was decreed ex parte on 30.06.1998 and the original defendant was directed to execute the sale deed in favor of the original plaintiff upon payment of the balance consideration.
9. The original defendant filed I.A. No. 2204 of 1998 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 30.06.1999. The original defendant
(1) Addition/deletion of parties in suit/appeal – Power to strike out or add a party to proceedings under Order I Rule 10 of CPC can be exercised by Court at any stage of proceeding.(2) Res Judicata ....
No time limit for impleadment under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC on devolution of interest; delay condoned if bona fide with no prejudice; distinguishes from abatement on death; transferee pendente lite bo....
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in a suit to protect their interest, and the trial court erred in dismissing the application for impleadment.
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC casts duty upon court to ensure impleadment and deletion of party, which may or may not be necessary for adjudication of case.
A transferee pendente lite is entitled to be impleaded in specific performance suits to protect their interests, validating the need for comprehensive adjudication of rights over the property.
The executing court must adjudicate all questions relating to right, title, or interest in property during execution proceedings, preventing collusion and ensuring timely justice.
Bonafide purchasers without notice of an original agreement can challenge a decree in a separate suit, as the Execution Court cannot adjudicate on the decree's collusiveness.
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
A subsequent transferee with a registered sale deed must be allowed to protect her interests in ongoing litigation, demonstrating both necessity and direct interest in the subject matter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
