Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
PREM NARAYAN SINGH
Ankit Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Badrilal – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present petition is being filed by the Petitioner/plaintiff being aggrieved by the order dated 28/09/2022 passed in Civil Suit No.138-A/2009 whereby the learned 28" District Judge, Indore has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for impleadment of certain persons as a necessary party to the civil suit.
2. Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.RCS-138-A/2009 for specific performance and permanent injunction, being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent no.1-Badrilal alleging that initially on 28.06.2006 the respondent No.2 Damodar S/o Laxmanji Khati and respondent No.3 Shyam S/o Laxmanji Khati entered into an agreement to sale with respondent No.1 Badrilal S/o Kaniram of a land bearing Khasra No’s.435, 392, 394, Halka Patwari No.15/2, total Rakba 8.33 Acres situated, at Musakhedi, Tehsil and District Indore (M.P.) for a consideration of Rs. 15,00,000 Per/Acre and sum to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid as a part payment.
3. Subsequent to that on 17/10/2006, the respondent No.1-Badrilal entered into an agreement to sale of the said land to the present petitioner/ plaintiff through an agreement to sale
The court held that parties whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication must be impleaded, affirming that the discretion to add such parties lies with the court to avoid multiplicity of su....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to determine whether a party is necessary for effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit, and the ....
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.
In a suit for permanent injunction, parties can only be added if they are necessary for adjudication; plaintiffs hold the discretion to determine who is included without compulsion to add parties not....
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....
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.
A party cannot be impleaded in an ongoing suit against the wishes of the plaintiff unless they are deemed a necessary or proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
The court emphasized that a necessary or proper party can only be added if it is essential for effective adjudication and not against the wishes of the dominus litis principle.
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
