Impleadment Under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC Requires 'Necessity' for Adjudication, Not Just Avoiding Multiplicity: High Court Upholds Rejection of Plea to Add Transferee Pendente Lite - 2024-11-05

High Court: Avoiding Multiplicity Alone Insufficient to Implead Transferee Pendente Lite Under Order I Rule 10 CPC

NEW DELHI: The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, has upheld a first Appellate Court's decision rejecting an application to implead purchasers who acquired property during the pendency of a suit ( transferee pendente lite ). The Court reiterated that the primary condition for adding a party under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is whether their presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute, not merely to avoid potential future litigation.

Case Background

The petitioners (original plaintiffs) had filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents on August 28, 2021. During the trial, on June 28, 2023, respondent No. 1 sold eleven plots, part of the suit land, to Smt. Nirmala Joshi and Smt. Rekha Joshi. Subsequently , the trial court dismissed the petitioners' suit on its merits on August 25, 2023.

The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. During the appeal proceedings, on December 12, 2023, they filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead the two purchasers (transferees pendente lite ). The first Appellate Court rejected this application via an order dated February 3, 2024. The present petition challenged this rejection order before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Argument: Counsel for the petitioners argued that the Appellate Court erred by not considering that while the transferees might not be strictly necessary parties, their impleadment was crucial to avoid multiplicity of litigation, as the purchasers might initiate separate proceedings regarding the plots. They cited Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur (AIR 1999 SC 976) and Notified Area Committee Buria vs. Gobind Ram Lachhman Dass (AIR 1959 Punjab 277) in support.

Respondents' Argument: Counsel for the respondents contended that the Appellate Court's order was legally sound and required no interference under Article 227. They relied heavily on Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, arguing the petitioners failed to demonstrate that a decree could not be effective without the transferees' presence. Furthermore, they pointed out that the petitioners were aware of the sale before the trial court's decree (having cross-examined witnesses on this point) but chose not to seek impleadment at that stage.

Court's Analysis and Application of Law

The High Court meticulously examined Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, which empowers the court to add parties whose presence is necessary "in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit."

The Court noted key facts: the sale occurred during the trial, the petitioners knew about it before the decree, cross-examined witnesses regarding the sale deeds, yet did not apply to implead the purchasers before the trial court.

Distinguishing Precedents: The Court found the petitioners' reliance on Savitri Devi misplaced, as that case involved a sale executed in violation of a court injunction, raising specific questions about contempt and bona fide purchase. The reliance on Notified Area Committee Buria was also distinguished; while confirming the appellate court's power to implead, that case dealt with adding a party due to a bona fide mistake , not solely based on avoiding multiplicity concerning a transferee pendente lite .

Defining "Necessary Party": The Court referred to Anil Kumar Singh vs. Shivnath Mishra (1995 SCC 3 147) and Gagan Preet Singh Dang vs. Namita Sarkar (2018 1 MPLJ 220), emphasizing the established principles for identifying a necessary party:

(A) that there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the dispute involved in the suit;

(B) that his presence should be necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.

The Court observed:

"In the present case, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction against the respondents. The petitioners were having knowledge of the execution of the sale deed by respondent No.1 during the pendency of the suit. But they were not impleaded party... The suit has been dismissed not on the ground of non joinder of the necessary party. There was no challenge to the sale deed executed in favour of the transferee pendente lite."

Scope of Article 227: The Court also reiterated the limited scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, citing Jai Singh vs. MCD (2010 9 SCC 385), Shalini Shetty vs. Rajendra S. Patil (2010 8 SCC 329), and Ashutosh Dubey vs. Tilak Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Maryadit (2004 2 MPHT 14). This power is reserved for instances of grave dereliction of duty, flagrant abuse of law, jurisdictional errors causing failure of justice, or manifest errors leading to grave injustice, none of which were found in the Appellate Court's order.

Final Decision

Finding no illegality or perversity in the Appellate Court's order, the High Court dismissed the petition. The Court concluded that the transferees pendente lite were not demonstrated to be necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the original suit's issues, and the desire to avoid potential future litigation, especially when the petitioners had prior knowledge of the transfer, was not a sufficient ground under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to compel their impleadment at the appellate stage. The order of the first Appellate Court was upheld.