IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 20 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 MISC. PETITION No. 6375 of 2025 DR. SONALI TRIPATHI Versus NIKHIL AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Atul Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Mukund Agrawal - G.A. for the State.

ORDER By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Family Court, whereby the Family Court has allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with 151 filed by defendant No.1 for deletion of name of defendant No.2 from the array of parties on the ground that the defendant No.2 is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for adjudication of the lis pending before the Court.

2. A suit has been filed by the present petitioner plaintiff against the defendant No.1, who is her estranged husband and in the suit, a relief has been sought that a property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 husband for which a substantial amount of money was paid by the plaintiff wife, and therefore, the plaintiff wife should be declared title-holder of the property purchased in the name of defendant No.1 husband.

3. While making such averments, the plaintiff in the plaint assertions has contended that the plaintiff-petitioner had transferred various amounts from her bank account to the account of defendant No.1 and apart from that some transactions were made in the account of defendant No.2, who was friend of her husband, defendant No.1 and that amount was later on utilized for purchase of the said property and on these assertions, the defendant No.2 was impeded as party on the twin assertions, firstly that part of sale consideration passed to the vendor of the property through the bank account of defendant No.2 and secondly, that the defendant No.2 had pointed out the land available for sale to the defendant No.1.

4. Apart from the aforesaid two assertions, neither any interest of the defendant No.2 in the property has been pleaded nor any relief against the defendant No.2 has been claimed in the matter of title of the property, or in the matter of return of money from the defendant No.1, despite pleading that certain part of consideration passed on to the vendor through defendant No.2.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since part of consideration to vendor passed through the defendant No.2, therefore, defendant No.2 is a proper party, though may not be a necessary party and in contending so, has relied on judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s J.N. Real Estate vs. Shailendra Pradhan & ors. (2025) INSC 611, to contend that the defendant No.2 is a proper party and he should not have been ordered to be deleted by the Family Court.

6. The Family Court has ordered deletion of defendant No.2 on the objection of the defendant No.1 husband, who asserted that the suit has been filed collusively by the plaintiff with the defendant No.2 and that since no relief is sought against the defendant No.2 nor any right, title, or interest of the defendant No.2 is pleaded in the suit property, therefore, he is neither a necessary nor a proper party, which has been accepted by the Family Court.

7. No doubt, it is true that the Court can order impleadment of a proper party at any stage of the suit, but for that, a person is required to show that he is a proper party. In the case of Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. vs. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 417, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a proper party is a person whose presence would enable the Court to effectively and completely and adequately adjudicate all matters in dispute in the suit, though he may not be a person in favour or against whom the decree is to be made and if the person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, then the Court should not implead him as a party to the suit.

8. The bare language of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C. P. C. mentions that the Court may add any party w