Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3997
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI, J
SMT. TARADEVI AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
JAIKUMAR AND OTHERS – Respondent
MISC. PETITION No. 3592 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Rishikesh Bohare
For the Respondents: Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma
The court determined that subsequent purchasers are necessary parties to ensure effective adjudication and avoid litigation multiplicity.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Impleadment Applications - Petition under Article 227 seeking to quash impugned order rejecting applications for impleading subsequent purchasers as defendants denied trial court's discretion - Ensuring inclusivity to avoid multiplicity of litigation emphasizes necessity for complete adjudication. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Case Law - The principles laid in Vidhur Impex and Anurag Agrawal highlight that parties claiming under vendors are not strangers in litigation, thereby making their presence proper but not necessary for a suit's adjudication. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to implead subsequent purchasers to avoid multiplicity of suits after the property was sold during pendency of the suit, which the trial court initially denied.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's order was set aside, allowing the applications under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for further proceedings.
Issues: The necessity of impleading subsequent purchasers and the implications of such decisions on the effective adjudication of the suit were crucial points.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles governing party impleadment, highlighting that inclusivity helps avoid litigation multiplicity, thus warranted the inclusion of the proposed parties for effective resolution. (Paras 5, 8)
Result: The application for impleadment allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash earlier trial court order on grounds of necessary party inclusion. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI th ON THE 8 OF JULY, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 3592 of 2024 SMT. TARADEVI AND OTHERS Versus JAIKUMAR AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma - learned Government Advocate for respondent No.2/State.
None for respondent No.1 though served.
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"The petitioners/plaintiffs respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 22-05-2024(contained in Ann.P/1) and also may kindly be pleased to allow the application under order 1 rule 10 C.P.C. (contained in Annexure P-5) and application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w sec.151 CPC (contained in Ann.P5) filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Any other suitable writ order or direction / for doing justice in the matter may kindly be issued. Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded."
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Court has erroneously rejected the applications filed by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU petitioners/plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10 and under Order XI Rule 17 read with Section with Section 151 of the C.P.C. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1-Jaikumar sold the property in question to the proposed defendant. Therefore, to avoid multiplicity of suits, the plaintiffs/petitioners have filed these applications to incorporate pleadings regarding such subsequent transfer and to implead the purchasers as defendants. The learned Trial Court, relying on the dictum laid down in the case of Vidhur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and Others , (2012) 8 SCC 384, held that since the disputed property was alienated during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the subsequent purchaser is not at all necessary party to the suit. In this regard, He also relied upon the case i.e. Anurag Agrawal v. Kailash Yadav and the judgment/order dated 01.03.2023 passed in M.P. No. 5250 of 2022. It is also submitted that keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Vidhur Impex (supra) wherein it has held that though such subsequent purchaser is not necessary party to the suit. However, the proposed parties who are claiming under the vendors cannot be said to be stranger/ third party whose presence is necessary with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the said application.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/State has opposed the application and respondent No.1 did not appear before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. In the case of Vidhur Impex (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 41 as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU
41. Though there is apparent conflict in the observations made in some of the aforementioned judgments, the broad principles which should govern disposal of an application for impleadment are:
41.1. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit.
41.2. A necessary party is the person who ought to be joined as party to the suit and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed by the court.
41.3. A proper party is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and properly adjudicate upon all matters and issues, though he may not be a person in favour of or against whom a decree is to be made.
41.4. If a pers
