1. Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction over property; proposed respondents sought impleadment claiming ancestral undivided share and possession. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 971
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Sevamandir Jodhpur - Petitioner
Versus
Legal Representatives Of Maharaja Tej Singh S/o Umed Singh, Through Lrs. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25026 Of 2025
Decided On : 23-07-2026
Important Points
Impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC requires only prima facie satisfaction that a party has a direct interest in the subject matter to ensure complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of suits. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to substitute the trial court's view unless it is perverse.
Subject
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order I Rule 10 - Impleadment of parties - The object of Order I Rule 10 is to ensure that the real controversy is effectively adjudicated in the presence of all persons whose rights may be affected by the outcome of the litigation (Para 5.1). While considering such an application, the Court is not required to perform a meticulous examination of the merits or finally determine title, but only to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary or proper for a complete and effective adjudication (Para 5.2). The determinative test is whether the party possesses a direct, substantial, and legally recognizable interest in the subject matter such that the final decree is likely to affect their legal or proprietary rights (Para 5.2.1). A "necessary party" is one without whom the dispute cannot be conclusively adjudicated, whereas a "proper party" is one whose presence facilitates a more complete adjudication (Para 5.2.2). Impleadment is further justified to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings and prevent inconsistent findings (Paras 5.3 and 5.3.1).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - The power of superintendence is supervisory and not appellate, intended only to ensure that subordinate courts remain within their jurisdiction and the administration of justice is free from patent illegality (Para 5.6). Interference is warranted only if the impugned order is patently perverse, manifestly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or results in a grave miscarriage of justice, and not simply because another possible view exists (Paras 5.7 and 5.8).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a trial court order allowing the impleadment of two respondents as defendants in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The proposed respondents moved an application for impleadment asserting that the suit property was ancestral and undivided, and that they possessed a definite share and partial possession. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that no relief was claimed against the proposed respondents and that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, could not be compelled to contest the suit against persons not consciously chosen for impleadment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly exercised its discretion by noticing that the applicants asserted a direct interest in the subject matter. Since the respondents projected a prima facie claim to ancestral property and possession, their exclusion could lead to an incomplete decree and further multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was legally sound and whether it warranted interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking impleadment needs only to demonstrate a prima facie nexus with the subject matter and show that the adjudication may affect their civil or proprietary rights. The court's role at this stage is not to decide the merits of the claim but to ensure all necessary parties are present for a comprehensive resolution. Under Article 227, a supervisory court will not interfere with discretionary orders unless they are perverse or manifesty illegal.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Scope of supervisory jurisdiction - The power of superintendence is supervisory and not appellate, intended only to ensure that subordinate courts remain within their jurisdiction and the administration of justice is free from patent illegality (Para 5.6). Interference is warranted only if the impugned order is patently perverse, manifestly arbitrary, without jurisdiction, or results in a grave miscarriage of justice, and not simply because another possible view exists (Paras 5.7 and 5.8).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged a trial court order allowing the impleadment of two respondents as defendants in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The proposed respondents moved an application for impleadment asserting that the suit property was ancestral and undivided, and that they possessed a definite share and partial possession. The petitioner opposed the application, arguing that no relief was claimed against the proposed respondents and that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, could not be compelled to contest the suit against persons not consciously chosen for impleadment.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly exercised its discretion by noticing that the applicants asserted a direct interest in the subject matter. Since the respondents projected a prima facie claim to ancestral property and possession, their exclusion could lead to an incomplete decree and further multiplicity of proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order allowing impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC was legally sound and whether it warranted interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking impleadment needs only to demonstrate a prima facie nexus with the subject matter and show that the adjudication may affect their civil or proprietary rights. The court's role at this stage is not to decide the merits of the claim but to ensure all necessary parties are present for a comprehensive resolution. Under Article 227, a supervisory court will not interfere with discretionary orders unless they are perverse or manifesty illegal.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. O.P. Mehta, Mr. Zubin Ahmed
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. O.P. Mehta, Mr. Zubin Ahmed
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner opposed impleadment asserting no relief claimed against respondents and dominus litis; respondents asserted direct interest in suit property necessitating participation. (Para 2 )
3. Trial court properly exercised discretion; applicants projected prima facie direct interest; adjudication without them may affect rights and cause multiplicity; no infirmity found. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Writ petition dismissed; no interference under Article 227 as trial court's discretion exercised on sound judicial principles without jurisdictional error. (Para 6 )
Order :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff laying challenge to the order passed by the learned Civil Judge whereby the application preferred by the proposed respondents under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed and they have been impleaded as defendants in the suit.
2. The facts of the case giving rise to the instant Writ Petition are that the petitioner has instituted a suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction in relation to the properties described in the plaint, claiming itself to be a duly registered society. During the pendency of the suit, two applicants namely Digvijay Singh and Narendra singh moved an application for their impleadment by asserting that the suit property is ancestral, remains undivided amongst the co-sharers and that they possess a definite share therein. It was further asserted that they are in possession of a part of the suit property and, therefore, any adjudication concerning the said property, if made in their absence, is likely to have a direct bearing upon their civil and proprietary rights.
2.1. The application was opposed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that no relief has been claimed against the proposed respondents and, therefore, they are neither necessary nor proper parties to the proceedings. It was also contended that the plaintiff, being dominus litis, cannot be compelled to contest the suit against persons whom it has consciously chosen not to implead.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon a careful examination of the impugned order, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has dealt with the controversy in considerable detail and has assigned cogent reasons while exercising its discretion under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
4. Perusal of the record reflects that the learned Trial Court has noticed that the applicants have asserted an independent and direct interest in the very property which forms the subject matter of the suit. It has further observed that if the dispute is adjudicated without their participation, the decree ultimately passed may incidentally or directly affect the rights claimed by them. The learned Trial Court has also been guided by the well- recognised principle that the presence of all persons claiming an interest in the subject matter of the litigation is conducive to a complete and effective adjudication and, at the same time, prevents avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
5.1. This Court finds no infirmity in the aforesaid approach. The object of Order I Rule 10 CPC is not merely to determine who should be arrayed as parties but to ensure that the real controversy is effectively adjudicated in the presence of all persons whose rights may be affected by the outcome of the litigation. Where a party asserts a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, the Court is empowered to implead such person if his presence is considered necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute.
5.2. The principles governing an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC are no longer res integra. While considering such an application, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous examination of the merits of the rival claims or to finally determine the title or entitlement asserted by the proposed applicant. At this stage, the Court is only required to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction as to whether the presence of the proposed party is necessary or, at least, proper for the complete, effective and comprehensive adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit.
5.2.1 The determinative test is whether the person seeking impleadment possesses a direct, substantial and legally recognizable interest in the subject matter of the litigation so that the adjudication ultimately rendered by the Court is capable of affecting his legal or proprietary rights. If the decree or order that may eventually be passe
