Legal Heir Impleaded After Due Inquiry & Without Any Objections Cannot Later Seek His Deletion From Party Array Under Order I Rule 10 CPC: SC

The Court upheld the Order of the High Court, which held that the application of the Appellant under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground. The Court explained that the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 of the CPC allows the Court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that a party can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage.

The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that “the power to strike out or add a party to the proceedings under Order I Rule 10 can be exercised by the court at any stage of the proceeding. However, the same cannot be construed to mean that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir under Order XXII Rule 4 after due inquiry by the court and without any objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an application under Order I Rule 10. If at all the appellant was aggrieved by his impleadment as a legal heir, the suitable course of action was to first object to his impleadment under Sub-rule (2) of Order XXII Rule 4.”

Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Mukund P. Unny represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale and for vacant possession of the suit property, which was decreed in the Respondent’s favour.

During the execution proceedings, the Appellant filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking the deletion of his name from the array of parties. He claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the suit property, having acquired it through a sale deed from the legal heirs of the deceased original Defendant. The Appellant contended that since he was not a party to the suit, he could not be bound by the decree.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court explained that “In the present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir was made by the Trial Court after due inquiry under Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently, neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subsequently against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the original defendant had attained finality between the parties and thus the subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could be said to be barred by res judicata.”

The Bench noted that “the Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Order I Rule 10, observed in clear terms that the appellant had the opportunity of contesting his impleadment as the legal heir of the original defendant when the application for impleadment and amendment of plaint was moved by the original plaintiff. The Trial Court has also noted that the appellant was not only served with the notice of the impleadment application, but he also entered appearance. However, the appellant, for reasons best known to him, chose to remain silent for more than four years and did not raise any objections as regards his status of not being a legal heir of the original defendant.”

The Court further stated, “Even then if the Trial Court would have decided against the appellant, it would have been open to him to approach the High Court by filing a revision application against the order of impleadment. However, the appellant chose to sit tight in the impleadment proceedings despite entering appearance. He was also a respondent in the application preferred by some of the legal heirs under Section 28 of the SRA seeking rescission of the contract, both before the Trial Court and later before the High Court in the revision preferred against the rejection of the said application. However, he chose not to raise any objection in either of these proceedings as well.”

The Bench held, “Undoubtedly, the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the same would run contrary to the considerations of fair play and justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes.”

Consequently, the Court ordered, “The High Court, in its impugned order, held the application of the appellant under Order I Rule 10 to be barred by res judicata and thus not maintainable on that ground. We find no infirmity in the said observation mad by the High Court.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 764)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Chitambaresh; AOR Harshad V. Hameed; Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, C. Govind Venugopal and Ashly Harshad

Respondents: AOR Mukund P. Unny

Click here to read/download the Judgment