Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Maryam Bee – Appellant
Versus
Shuibham Jain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details on the factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. parties’ arguments regarding the impleadment. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on the appeal's maintainability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. analysis of whether a third party can be impleaded. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. reasoning against impleading the respondent no. 4. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion and outcome of the appeal. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through this Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] read with Section 10 of the DELHI HIGH COURT ACT , 1966 [hereinafter referred to as “DHC Act”], the Appellant assails the correctness of the Order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A. No. 23592/2023 in C.S. (Comm) No. 590/2023 titled Shuibham Jain and Ors. vs. Maryam Bee, wherein the application, under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908, filed by Respondent No.4, was allowed and he was impleaded in the underlying suit as a party and arrayed as Defendant No.2.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The brief facts leading to the present Appeal are that Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (P
A third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if their presence is not necessary to resolve the original contract dispute, as it alters the nature of the suit.
The court affirmed the principle that parties with substantial interest must be joined for effective adjudication in specific performance suits, emphasizing judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10.
The decision to allow subsequent purchasers as parties in specific performance suits is justified when they demonstrate a semblance of title or interest to the property, supporting effective judicial....
In specific performance suits, a plaintiff cannot be compelled to join third parties, preserving their control over the litigation.
The court ruled that third parties may be necessary in specific performance suits to avoid multiplicity of litigation, allowing their impleadment and amendment of the suit.
Agreement to Sell – There is no absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed, no third person can be impleaded as party to suit – In order to avoid multiplicity of proc....
A third party seeking impleadment must demonstrate a direct legal interest in the case, and the court retains discretion to allow or deny such applications based on the specifics of the case.
The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between necessary and proper parties under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that even if a party is not necessary, their presence c....
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
