The Delhi High Court has upheld the trial court’s refusal to implead a third party as a defendant in a 1992 suit for permanent injunction relating to agricultural land in Chhattarpur.
The petitioner had first moved the trial court with an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to be added as a defendant, asserting that he had purchased the suit property through a chain of GPA-based transactions tracing back to the defendant. The trial court rejected that application in 2022, prompting him to approach the High Court under Article 227.
The original suit, filed in 1992, concerns only whether the plaintiff is in settled possession of the land and whether the defendant threatened interference. Justice Kathpalia noted that no issue of title arises in the suit, and the plaintiff has levelled no allegations, nor expressed any apprehension, against the petitioner. Since the suit is confined to possession, the Court held that the petitioner here was neither a necessary nor a proper party, and his addition could not assist in the effective adjudication of the issues actually in dispute.
The Court emphasised that impleading the petitioner would convert a simple injunction suit into a complicated title dispute, which is contrary to the settled law in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, Mumbai International Airport, (2005) 6 SCC 733 and J.J. Lal Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 1061. The High Court also recorded that the petitioner approached the court after an unexplained delay of eight years, once the suit had reached the stage of final arguments, strengthening the inference that he was “watching proceedings” and attempting to derail the trial.
The Court also clarified that the petitioner’s claim was entirely derivative, flowing from an earlier alleged transferee whose own attempt to be impleaded in the same suit had been rejected years ago. The High Court noted that the coordinate bench’s 2022 remand for fresh consideration merely required the trial court to examine the petitioner’s application independently, and did not erase or invalidate the earlier conclusion regarding the non-maintainability of such derivative claims.
Holding that no perversity was found in the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227.
Appearances
Petitioners- Mr. Trilok Nath Saxena and Dr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates.
Respondents- Mr. Zeeshan Ahmed, Advocate
