IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3261-2025 Date of decision: 22.01.2026 Naresh Kumar ...Pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner Versus Vikram Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner, who is one of the legal representa(cid:31)ves of deceased defendant No.1 – Jasmer Singh, is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by the learned Addi(cid:31)onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, in Civil Suit No.755 of 2017 (cid:31)tled Vikram Singh v. Jasmer Singh, whereby an applica(cid:31)on moved by the plain(cid:31)ff under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of subsequent transferees of the suit property has been allowed.

2. The suit was ins(cid:31)tuted by respondent No.1–plain(cid:31)ff seeking a decree of specific performance on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 02.01.2016, executed by Jasmer Singh for a total sale considera(cid:31)on of ₹4,12,500/-, out of which an amount of ₹4,00,000/- was received as earnest money. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plain(cid:31)ff asserted that on 15.09.2023, he came to know that despite the subsistence of the agreement to sell, Jasmer Singh had executed a transfer deed No. 1633/1 dated 29.11.2016 in favour of Manpreet Singh, Ravi and Parbhat (respondents No.2 to 4 herein), pursuant whereto muta(cid:31)on No.656 had also been sanc(cid:31)oned. On these pleadings, the plain(cid:31)ff sought their impleadment, which prayer has been accepted by the learned trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner contends that the subsequent transferees were neither necessary nor proper par(cid:31)es to the suit and that the trial Court erred in allowing their impleadment.

4. This Court finds no substance in the aforesaid conten(cid:31)on.

5. The scope of Order I Rule 10 CPC is well se@led. The provision empowers the Court to add any party whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to effec(cid:31)vely and completely adjudicate upon and se@le all the ques(cid:31)ons involved in the suit. A “necessary party” is one without whom no effec(cid:31)ve decree can be passed, whereas a “proper party” is one whose presence enables the Court to completely and effec(cid:31)vely adjudicate upon the dispute.

6. In a suit for specific performance, the ques(cid:31)on of impleadment of subsequent transferees is governed by Sec(cid:31)on 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which expressly provides that a decree for specific performance may be enforced against any person claiming under the vendor by a (cid:31)tle arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without no(cid:31)ce of the original contract. Thus, the rights of subsequent transferees are directly intertwined with the relief sought in the suit.

7. In the present case, it is an admi@ed posi(cid:31)on that the transfer deed in favour of respondents No.2 to 4 was executed on 29.11.2016, whereas the suit for specific performance was ins(cid:31)tuted on 11.07.2017. Consequently, the subsequent transferees derive their (cid:31)tle from the original vendor and claim through him. Any decree for possession by way of specific performance, if granted, would directly affect their rights and interest in the property.

8. In the absence of their impleadment, the trial Court would not be in a posi(cid:31)on to pass an effec(cid:31)ve and executable decree. Moreover, non- impleadment of such transferees would give rise to mul(cid:31)plicity of proceedings and may render the decree in-executable, thereby defea(cid:31)ng the very object of the suit.

9. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discre(cid:31)on in allowing the applica(cid:31)on under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The order neither suffers from any jurisdic(cid:31)onal error nor discloses any perversity w