2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA
DHARAMPAL KAPOOR AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS – Respondent
CMPMO/537/2025

The court affirmed that a plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties who fail the 'necessary' or 'proper' party tests. It also reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate review for correcting everyday factual or legal errors.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of parties - Necessary and Proper Party - Dominus Litis - The plaintiff is the master of the suit and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is sought unless that person is a necessary or proper party. A 'necessary party' is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed; a 'proper party' is one whose presence enables the court to completely and effectively adjudicate the dispute. Two tests for determining a necessary party: (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies involved; (2) no effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party. (Paras 20, 21, 22)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court - The power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate power to reappreciate evidence or correct every error of fact, but a correctional jurisdiction used in cases of grave injustice, failure of justice, jurisdictional error, or where the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could reach such a conclusion. (Paras 24, 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by a plaintiff against a statutory authority to prevent the demolition of a building. Third parties filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be impleaded as defendants, claiming ownership interests and alleging that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and carried out illegal construction. The trial court dismissed the impleadment application. The applicants challenged this order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Findings of Court:
The dispute in the suit is primarily between the plaintiff and the statutory authority regarding the validity of a notice issued under the relevant Municipal Act. The applicants failed to satisfy the tests of being necessary or proper parties as no relief was sought against them, and an effective decree could be passed in their absence. Prior litigations had already adjudicated the title of the plaintiff through adverse possession, and any new grievances regarding encroachment must be sought through separate appropriate proceedings.

Issues: Whether the applicants were necessary or proper parties to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and whether the trial court's order was liable to be interfered with under the supervisory jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff, as dominus litis, chooses whom to litigate against. A party cannot be added against the plaintiff's wishes unless they are必要 or proper parties. Since the core issue is the legality of a notice issued by a statutory body, third-party ownership claims do not make them necessary parties. Furthermore, supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to act as a first appeal to substitute its own findings of fact for those of the trial court.

Result: Petition dismissed.