Subsequent Transferees Can Be Impleaded in Specific Performance Suits Under O1R10 & O6R17 CPC to Avoid Multiplicity of Litigation: High Court - 2025-06-17

High Court Permits Impleadment of Subsequent Transferees in Specific Performance Suit to Prevent Future Litigation

Jaipur: In a significant ruling concerning suits for specific performance, the High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , has overturned a Trial Court order, emphasizing that subsequent transferees of suit property can and should be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. The Court allowed the petitioner's applications for impleading new parties under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and for amending the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

The decision came in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13674/2022 (and a connected matter), where the petitioner challenged the Trial Court's order dated 28.05.2022, which had rejected these applications.

Case Background

The petitioner, Prahlad Kumar (plaintiff), had filed a suit in 2009 for the specific performance of a registered sale agreement dated 06.03.2008 against respondent Nos. 1 to 3. During the pendency of this suit, on 20.12.2018, Durjay Singh (paternal uncle of respondent Nos. 2 and 3) executed a registered gift deed of the suit property in favour of Ms. Pragya Singh (daughter of respondent No. 3).

Consequently, the plaintiff sought to implead Durjay Singh and Ms. Pragya Singh as defendants and also applied to amend the suit to include a challenge to the validity of this gift deed. The Trial Court dismissed these applications, reportedly relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal , finding that the proposed parties were neither necessary nor proper for a specific performance suit.

Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner's counsel argued that impleading Durjay Singh and Ms. Pragya Singh , and challenging the gift deed, was essential to prevent multiple lawsuits concerning the same property. They contended that the Trial Court erred in its reliance on Kasturi and should have considered the principles laid down in Sumti Bai v. Paras Finance Company , which supports impleadment to avoid multiplicity of litigation.

Conversely, the respondents' counsel supported the Trial Court's order. They argued that in a suit for specific performance, only the original parties to the agreement are necessary and proper. Impleading third parties, they claimed, would unnecessarily complicate the suit. They cited Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal , Bharat Karsondas Thakkar v. Kiran Construction Company and Ors. , and Surendra Kumar Khedwal v. Puurshottam Lal Banka and Ors. in their support.

High Court's Rationale and Application of Legal Precedents

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand , after hearing both sides and perusing the record, disagreed with the Trial Court's approach. The High Court observed that while the Trial Court may have relied on certain interpretations, a broader view of judicial precedents, especially concerning transferees pendente lite (during the pendency of the suit), was warranted.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sumti Bai v. Paras Finance Company (2007 (10) SCC 82) , noting:

"From a perusal of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sumti Bai (supra), it is clear that their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court were of the opinion that there is no absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed, no third person can be impleaded as party to the suit. Their Lordships were also of the opinion that in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings between the parties, the third party should be impleaded as defendant in the lis, pending before the Court."

Further strengthening this position, the Court extensively quoted from Amit Kumar Shaw and another v. Farida Khatoon and another ((2005) 11 SCC 403) , where the Apex Court elaborated on Order 1, Rule 10 CPC and the status of an alienee pendente lite :

"9. The object of Order 1, Rule 10 is to discourage contests on technical pleas, and to save honest and bona fide claimants from being non-suited... 10. The power of a Court to add a party to a proceeding cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property. The question is whether the right of the person may be affected if he is not added as a party... 14. An alienee pendente lite is bound by the final decree that may be passed in the suit. Such an alienee can be brought on record both under this rule also under Order 1, Rule 10 ... 16. ...the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral... The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest."

The High Court also noted that the principles in Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) were reiterated in A. Nawab John v. V N Subhramaniyam (2012 (7) SCC 738) , supporting the impleadment of subsequent purchasers in specific performance suits.

Final Decision and Implications

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the High Court concluded:

"Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, where during pendency of the suit the property in question has been gifted by Durjay Singh in favour of Ms. Pragya Singh ... and if the aforesaid persons are not allowed to be impleaded as defendants, it would definitely create multiplicity of the proceedings between the interested parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that Durjay Singh and Ms. Pragya Singh are necessary and proper party to be impleaded in the suit and the registered gift deed executed by Durjay Singh in favour of the Ms. Pragya Singh is liable to be challenged on the point of its validity and the averments to this effect are liable to be incorporated in the plaint..."

Consequently, both writ petitions were allowed. The impugned order of the Trial Court dated 28.05.2022 was quashed and set aside. The applications filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC (for impleadment) and Order 6, Rule 17 CPC (for amendment of plaint) were allowed. The Trial Court has been directed to proceed with the suit accordingly.

This judgment reinforces the legal position that courts should lean towards impleading parties whose presence is crucial for a complete and effectual adjudication, especially when subsequent transfers of property occur during litigation, thereby preventing fragmented and multiple future lawsuits.