Judgment in a civil suit will not bind non-parties and will not operate as res judicata against them. Orders affecting the rights of non-parties in immovable property cannot be passed in their absence.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral):--

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order passed by the trial court dated 28.1.2013 by which the trial court has allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of one Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and impleaded him as defendant No. 4 in the suit. In fact by the impugned order besides Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma being impleaded as defendant No. 4, the brother of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma i.e Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma has been impleaded as defendant No. 5.

2. The subject suit is a suit for partition and injunction with respect to the property No. 34, Block Q, Double Story, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi. The case of the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma as also his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma is that they are in exclusive physical possession of the suit property and in their absence as parties in the suit, their valuable rights in the suit would be affected. The applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma claimed to be in possession of the suit property pursuant to a title, and which title is very emphatically denied by the parties to the suit.

3. I am informed that the suit, in fact, has been compromised between the parties to the suit and the petitioner/defendant No. 1 has been given by the other parties the complete right, title and interest in the suit property.

4. It is trite that judgment in a civil suit will only bind the parties to the suit and will not operate as res judicata against a person who is not a party to the suit, however, similarly it is trite that judgment in a suit cannot affect the rights, entitlement and enjoyment including the possession of a person in an immovable property and who is not a party to the suit i.e effectively orders cannot be passed, interim or final, which can affect the rights of a person in his absence on account of his not being a party to the suit.

5. In view of the above, while the impugned order impleading the applicant Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and his brother Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma is set aside because the judgment in the suit will not operate as res judicata against Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, however, it is clarified that no order of any nature whether interim, final or otherwise will be passed in the subject suit which in any manner will have bearing on the rights, entitlement, enjoyment and possession of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma in the suit property.

6. I may hasten to clarify that I have not opined in one way or the other with respect to contesting claims of title in the suit property, either of the present parties to the suit or of Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma. Further, it is always open to Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma and Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma to file appropriate independent proceedings in a court of law, if so advised, if there is any cloud cast on their title or entitlement to use, possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of, but, in terms of the aforesaid observations.