AI Thinking...

Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Analysing the retrieved Case Laws

Scanned Judgements…!

AI Overview...

Impleaded Party Under Order 22 Rule 4 Cannot Be Later Deleted Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) - The provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 relate specifically to the death of a party during the pendency of a suit, allowing legal representatives to be substituted in the suit. However, once a party, such as a defendant or legal heir, has been impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4, they cannot be subsequently deleted or removed from the suit at a later stage solely under Order 1 Rule 10(2). ["Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - Rajasthan"] ["Chandra Kala VS Kanak Mal - Rajasthan"] ["Navaratna Estates, Visakhapatnam VS Kari Anasuya - Andhra Pradesh"]
Main Point: The scope of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC is primarily to add or strike out necessary or proper parties during the course of a suit, based on judicial discretion. It is not intended for removing parties who have been properly impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4, especially when such impleadment is based on the death of a party during the suit ["H. Nagarajappa Since Dead By His Lr's Sri B.N. Girish, S/o. Late H. Nagarajappa vs H.S. Manjunath, S/o. Late H. Srikantaiah - Karnataka"].
Insight: The courts have clarified that once a legal heir or party has been impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4 after due inquiry, they cannot be later deleted under Order 1 Rule 10(2) unless the initial impleadment was improper or based on incorrect facts. ["Sulthan Said Ibrahim VS Prakasan - Supreme Court"]
Further Clarification: Order 1 Rule 10(2) gives wide discretion to the court to add or strike out parties, but this discretion does not extend to reversing proper impleadments made under Order 22 Rule 4, which are based on the occurrence of death during the suit ["Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - Rajasthan"].
Legal Heirs and Parties Impleaded Under Order 22 Rule 4 Are Not Usually Deletable Later Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) - The legal position is that once a party, including legal heirs, is impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4, their inclusion is based on the death of the original party during the suit, and they are considered necessary parties for the effective adjudication of the case ["Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - Rajasthan"].
Main Point: Such parties cannot be arbitrarily deleted or removed at a later stage under Order 1 Rule 10(2), unless it is established that the initial impleadment was improper or no longer necessary ["H. Nagarajappa Since Dead By His Lr's Sri B.N. Girish, S/o. Late H. Nagarajappa vs H.S. Manjunath, S/o. Late H. Srikantaiah - Karnataka"].
Insight: The courts have emphasized that the purpose of Order 22 Rule 4 is to facilitate proper substitution of parties upon death, and this process is distinct from the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10, which deals with adding or deleting parties for other reasons ["Hari Chand Suthar S/o Sh. Hukmaram VS Rehmat W/o Late Sh. Guam Kadir Junea - Rajasthan"].
Order 1 Rule 10(2) Is About Judicial Discretion, Not Automatic Right to Deletion - The rule provides the court with discretion to add or strike out parties during the proceedings, but it does not grant a right to parties who have been properly impleaded to later seek their deletion without valid grounds ["Mosmat Lilawati Devi W/o late Om Prakash Kashyap VS Sumendra Devi, W/o late Jagdish Ram - Patna"].
Main Point: Proper impleadment under Order 22 Rule 4 is not subject to reversal solely under Order 1 Rule 10(2). The court's discretion under Order 10(2) is to ensure the proper parties are before the court, not to undo proper impleadments based on death or necessity ["H. Nagarajappa Since Dead By His Lr's Sri B.N. Girish, S/o. Late H. Nagarajappa vs H.S. Manjunath, S/o. Late H. Srikantaiah - Karnataka"].
Conclusion: Once a party, especially a legal heir, is impleaded under Order 22 Rule 4 after due inquiry, they cannot be later deleted under Order 1 Rule 10(2), unless the initial process was flawed or the party is no longer necessary for the suit ["Chandra Kala VS Kanak Mal - Rajasthan"].

Can an Impleaded Party Under Order 22 Rule 4 Be Deleted Under Order 1 Rule 10(2)?

In civil litigation under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, managing parties to a suit is crucial for fair and effective adjudication. A common question arises: Can an impleaded party under Order 22 Rule 4 be later deleted under Order 1 Rule 10(2)? This issue pits specific substitution rules against broad discretionary powers, often leading to confusion in ongoing suits. Understanding this distinction can prevent procedural missteps and ensure suits progress without unnecessary abatement.

This post breaks down the legal principles, key case law, and practical implications, drawing from authoritative judgments. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.

Main Legal Finding

Generally, an impleaded party under Order 22 Rule 4 cannot be automatically or arbitrarily deleted under Order 1 Rule 10(2). These provisions serve different legal purposes and operate in distinct circumstances. Order 22 Rule 4 specifically addresses substitution of legal representatives when a defendant dies during the pendency of a suit, preventing abatement and allowing the suit to continue against the deceased's estate Khalil Ahmad VS Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur - 1974 0 Supreme(All) 47.

In contrast, Order 1 Rule 10(2) provides courts with wide discretion to add or strike out parties at any stage if their presence is necessary for complete settlement of all questions involved Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5. While flexible, this power does not override the targeted mechanism of Order 22 Rule 4 without justification Rekha Kapoor VS Pawan Chandra - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1838.

Key Distinctions Between Order 22 Rule 4 and Order 1 Rule 10(2)

Order 22 Rule 4: Substitution on Death

This rule applies only when a defendant dies during the subsistence of the suit. It mandates bringing legal representatives on record to avoid abatement. As held in relevant judgments, Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC applies only in the case where the death of one of the several defendants or the sole defendant occurs during the subsistence of the suit Surya Prakash VS Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212. Its aim is continuity, not general party management.

Order 1 Rule 10(2): Broad Discretionary Power

Order 1 Rule 10(2) empowers courts to strike out or add parties for effective adjudication. Courts have noted its expansive scope: Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code empowers the court to substitute a party in the suit who is a wrong person with a right person. ... Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code gives wide discretion to the court Rekha Kapoor VS Pawan Chandra - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1838 Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.).

However, this discretion is judicial, not routine. It applies in varied scenarios, such as impleading transferees pendente lite, but typically under Order 22 Rule 10 for substitutions due to assignment, not death RAM NARESH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA - 2015 Supreme(All) 264 Rohtash Singh VS Kalyan Singh - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 861.

| Aspect | Order 22 Rule 4 | Order 1 Rule 10(2) ||--------|-----------------|---------------------|| Trigger | Death during suit | Any stage, necessity for adjudication || Purpose | Prevent abatement, substitute LRs | Add/delete for complete resolution || Scope | Specific to death | Broad discretion || Automatic? | Mandatory substitution | Judicial exercise required |

Insights from Case Law

Gurucharan Singh (Supra)

This judgment clarifies that Order 22 Rule 4 is limited to deaths during the suit. If a defendant dies before filing, legal representatives cannot be impleaded under this rule, and the suit does not abate solely due to prior death Surya Prakash VS Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212. It underscores non-interchangeability with general provisions.

Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya (Supra)

The Supreme Court emphasized: An application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code comes into the picture only when a party dies during the pendency of the suit and the application to bring on record the legal representatives of a deceased defendant can be made under Order 1 Rule 10 Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5. Yet, once impleaded under Rule 4, deletion requires specific grounds.

Balram v. P. Chellathangam (2015)

Reaffirming discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2), the Court noted it can be invoked to delete or add parties, including legal representatives, whenever necessary for effective adjudication Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.

Additional precedents highlight limits:- Purchasers pendente lite may be impleaded under Order 22 Rule 10, not automatically Order 1 Rule 10, showing provision-specific application Rohtash Singh VS Kalyan Singh - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 861 RAM NARESH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA - 2015 Supreme(All) 264.- Courts treat mislabeled applications (e.g., under Order 1 instead of Order 22 Rule 10) substantively if ingredients are met, but stress judicial scrutiny Pradeep Kumar Mohanty VS Bana Behari Mohanty - 2012 Supreme(Ori) 109.

Can an Impleaded Party Under Order 22 Rule 4 Be Deleted Later?

Once substituted under Order 22 Rule 4, the legal representative's position is anchored in the death event. Deletion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is not automatic but possible if:- Their presence is no longer necessary for effective adjudication.- Facts justify striking out, via judicial discretionGotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.

Arbitrary deletion undermines Order 22's anti-abatement goal. As in Gurucharan Singh, Rules 4 and 9 of Order 22 abate the suit against the deceased but protect against fresh suits without substitution—deletion must align with this Surya Prakash VS Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212.

Related contexts, like lis pendens transferees, reinforce: They can join under Order 22 Rule 10 but not as a blanket under Order 1 Rule 10 without necessity Mamta VS Hem Raj Khanna - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1545 Kiran Kumar Xalxo, son of Late Franklin Xalxo VS Yusuf Khan, son of Late Matbar Khan - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 258.

Exceptions and Limitations

Court's Discretion: Deletion may occur if the legal representative lacks interest or presence hinders adjudication Rekha Kapoor VS Pawan Chandra - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1838.
No Interchangeability: Provisions aren't substitutes; misuse invites reversal Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.
Pendente Lite Transfers: Handled via Order 22 Rule 10, allowing stepping into shoes without voiding transfers under Section 52 TPA Mamta VS Hem Raj Khanna - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1545.

Practical Recommendations

Invoke Correctly: Use Order 22 Rule 4 for death during suit; Order 1 Rule 10(2) for other necessities.
Seek Justification: For deletion, demonstrate via application why presence is unnecessary.
Avoid Delay: Timely applications prevent abatement or multiplicity of suits Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.).
Judicial Caution: Courts must reason orders to uphold fairness Kiran Kumar Xalxo, son of Late Franklin Xalxo VS Yusuf Khan, son of Late Matbar Khan - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 258.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

In summary, while Order 1 Rule 10(2) offers flexibility, it does not permit casual deletion of parties impleaded under the specific Order 22 Rule 4. Deletion requires a reasoned finding that the party's presence is no longer essential for complete adjudication Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5.

Key Takeaways:- Order 22 Rule 4 is mandatory for death substitutions; Order 1 Rule 10(2) is discretionary.- No automatic deletion—judicial exercise mandatory.- Precedents emphasize contextual application to avoid procedural errors.

Stay informed on CPC nuances to safeguard your litigation interests. For tailored guidance, reach out to a legal professional.

References:- Khalil Ahmad VS Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur - 1974 0 Supreme(All) 47, Gotan Limestone Khanij Udyog Pvt. Ltd. VS State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Mines Department - 2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 5, Surya Prakash VS Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda - 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1212, Rekha Kapoor VS Pawan Chandra - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1838, Rekha Kapoor vs Pawan Chandra (Dr.), RAM NARESH VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEORIA - 2015 Supreme(All) 264, Kiran Kumar Xalxo, son of Late Franklin Xalxo VS Yusuf Khan, son of Late Matbar Khan - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 258, Mamta VS Hem Raj Khanna - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1545, Rohtash Singh VS Kalyan Singh - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 861, Pradeep Kumar Mohanty VS Bana Behari Mohanty - 2012 Supreme(Ori) 109

#CPCRules, #ImpleadmentLaw, #LegalSubstitution

Mamta VS Hem Raj Khanna - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1545

It is, therefore, apparent that the assignee of suit property, pending CR No.2678 of 2011 (6) adjudication of a lis, cannot be impleaded as a party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but may be allowed to continue or defend the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC, by stepping into the shoes of the party ... Order 22 Rule #HL_....

Jeera Devi VS Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Varanasi - 2023 Supreme(All) 1760

XXIII Rule 1 of the Code, can the third party in jeopardy be permitted to be substituted for the withdrawing plaintiff and granted leave to prosecute the suit; or in any event, impleaded as a plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 of the Code and permitted to pursue the suit? ... XIII Rule 1 of the Code, if the case be of collusion affecting rights of third parties etc., and still the Court would retain jurisdiction to substitute under #HL....

MSD OSS B. V VS RELIANCE LIFE SCIENCES PVT LTD - 2018 Supreme(Del) 1969

However, the question will be one of due diligence. So far as allowing a party to be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10(2) or Order 22 Rule 10, or Order 41 Rule 20 is concerned the discretion has to be exercised by the court judicially. There is no bar of the transferee pendente lite being impleaded as a party under O. 22, R. 10 at the appellate stage.

Rohtash Singh VS Kalyan Singh - 2012 Supreme(P&H) 861

It is correct that purchasers pendente lite are not entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, they are entitled to be impleaded as party to the suit under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, impleadment of respondents no.5 and 6 as party to the suit shall be deemed to be under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and not under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, but for this reason, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by respondents no.5 and 6 is not required to be dismissed merely because wrong provision of law has b....

Pradeep Kumar Mohanty VS Bana Behari Mohanty - 2012 Supreme(Ori) 109

Even if an application has been filed under Order 1, Rule 10, labelling the application being misconceived, the Court should ignore the labelling of the application as one under Order 1, Rule 10 and treat the same as one filed under Order 22, Rule 10 (1), C.P.C., if the ingredients thereof are satisfied. This aspect of the law was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench which decided Pranakrushna's case (supra) and rejected the application of the pendente lite transferee solely upon a consideration of the principles embodied in Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C." Assuming that he is ....

LINGARAJA MOHANTY VS BINODINI MOHANTY - 2011 Supreme(Ori) 513

LINGARAJA MOHANTY -V- BINODINI MOHANTY [ C.R.DASH, J. ] (opp. party No.9) be impleaded as a party either Under Ofder-1, Rule-10 or Under Order-22, Rule-10 C.P.C. The rule is based not on the doctrine of notice but on principle of expediency and public policy.

Lingaraj Saraf VS Akhaya Kumar Saraf - 2007 Supreme(Ori) 446

He filed sepa¬rate written statement pleading therein that there was never any partition in the family at any time and that the family still continues to be joint. 4. Defendant No.2 got himself impleaded as a party by filing a petition under Order 10, Rule 1, C.P.C. He claimed that his father Late Sadhu being one of the sons of Jata had a share in the family property and accordingly, he is entitled to 1/4th share in the entire family property.