In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court to assail an order dated 10-09-2025 by the Trial Court whereby her application under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), to implead a stranger as a party in the partition suit was dismissed, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia found no infirmity in the impugned order and denied to implead the proposed defendant as a party to the suit.
The petitioner filed a suit for partition and a permanent injunction regarding an estate left by the preceding owner in the interests of the petitioner and the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application to implead a stranger as defendant 6. On 18-09-2024, she came to know that the said stranger had forcibly taken possession of the subject property and claimed to have purchased it from one of the defendants. Thus, the petitioner claimed that the stranger was a necessary party.
In response to the application under Order I Rule 10 (CPC), the proposed defendant submitted that the preceding owner, in her lifetime, had sold and handed over the subject property to defendant 2 on 17-07-1999, and thereafter, the property was sold and handed over to the proposed defendant on 10-07-2024.
The trial court held that the proposed defendant had no connection to the suit and was neither a necessary nor a proper party, as the suit was filed only for partition. It was also observed that the Agreement to Sell and attendant documents were not valid documents of transfer of title.
It was stated that if a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the Court has no jurisdiction to implead him. The Court said that merely the fact that a person could secure a right or interest in the subject property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, would not make such a person a necessary or proper party to the suit.
Further, the Court mentioned two tests for determining whether a person is a necessary party: (a) There must be a right to some relief against such party regarding the controversies involved in the proceedings, and (b) No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.
The Court referred to various cases and said that it could not be said that, in the absence of the proposed defendant, the suit could not be effectively decided. It was also stated that if the proposed defendant is made a party to the suit, the scope of the suit would widen from a simple partition suit to a title suit. Thus, the Court said that the addition of the party had to be denied.
Therefore, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned order and affirmed it, dismissing the petition with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with DHCLSC within a week.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Roopa Nagpal
For Respondents – None
