Supreme Court Restores Trial Court Order Allowing Buyer to Be Impleaded in Specific Performance Suit

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals challenging orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had set aside a trial court order impleading a purchaser as a defendant in a suit for specific performance. The appeals arose from the High Court’s orders dated 12.06.2023 and 12.12.2023 in which the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, quashed the Trial Court’s 14.03.2018 order that had added M/s J N Real Estate as defendant No.8 in Regular Civil Suit No.360-A/2007.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court orders and restored the Trial Court’s impleadment order. The Court held that the High Court should not have exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to interfere with the Trial Court’s exercise of discretion under Order I Rule 10 CPC, because the “genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial.” The Court emphasised the distinction between a “necessary party” and a “proper party” and recorded that a non-party seeking impleadment may be a proper party even if not a necessary party. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no. 8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff i.e., Regular Civil Suit No. 360-A/2007. We say so because the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial. A party who is seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be termed as a proper party. There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party. A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit.” The Court further noted that “the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute,” and that all contentions remained open for trial.

Background

The dispute concerned competing titles over agricultural land originally owned by Late Indramohan Pradhan. One will dated 03.02.2001 purportedly bequeathed the property to Late Sameer Ghosh, who obtained probate; another will dated 07.07.2001 purportedly bequeathed the same property to the testator’s sons. Multiple transactions and agreements followed: the sons entered an agreement to sell dated 05.11.2006 in favour of the original plaintiff (Adarsh Malhotra), while the sons allegedly later entered an agreement dated 18.05.2007 in favour of Shailendra Pradhan (original defendant No.4). The purchaser-appellant claimed that Sameer Ghosh executed an agreement and a sale deed in its favour (sale deed dated 30.05.2009, registered on 29.03.2014) for Rs.78 lakh.

Adarsh Malhotra instituted RCS No.360-A/2007 for specific performance of the 05.11.2006 agreement and challenged the 03.02.2001 will and the consequent probate. Separate proceedings included MJC No.66/2008 (cancellation of probate) and RCS No.401-A/2010 (specific performance in favour of defendant No.4). The purchaser sought impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the plaintiff’s suit; the Trial Court allowed impleadment on 14.03.2018. The High Court, doubting the genuineness of the purchaser’s documents and noting an earlier status quo order, set aside the impleadment; subsequent review petitions were dismissed by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, counsel for the parties debated the scope of Order I Rule 10 and precedents including Kasturi, Sumtibai and Mumbai International Airport. Applying those authorities, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering under Article 227 and that factual disputes about the transaction and documents were to be adjudicated at trial. The appeals succeeded and the Trial Court order was restored; the Court left all substantive questions open for adjudication at trial and disposed of pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 611; Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos.12205-12206/2024) Case Title: M/s J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C.U. Singh, Senior Counsel (for original defendant no.8 / appellant) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Navin Pahwa, Senior Counsel (for original defendant no.4); Mr. Atharva Gaur (for original plaintiff)