Order I Rule 10 CPC - Nobody Can Be Permitted To Be Impleaded As Defendants Against The Wish Of The Plaintiffs Unless Court Suo Motu Directs: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and unless the court suo motu directs, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs.

The bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari observed that non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.

In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. The Trial Court allowed an application filed under Order I Rule 10 by defendants to implead the subsequent purchasers as defendants. The petition filed by plaintiffs challenging this order was dismissed by the High Court. 

In appeal, the appellants-plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs are the dominus litis and nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants contended that the Trial Court had directed impleadment to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings and to pass an effective decree as the suit property was transferred in favour of the subsequent purchasers during the pendency of the suit.

The court observed:

"The suit is for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of possession. As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the domius litis. Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. Therefore, subsequent purchasers could not have been impleaded as party defendants in the application submitted by the original defendants, that too against the wish of the plaintiffs."

The court however noted that the defendants have also filed counter-claim for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and permanent injunction. While allowing the appeal, the bench observed:

"in case the counter-claim is allowed, as the plaintiffs are opposing to implead the subsequent purchasers as party defendants, thereafter it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers. Therefore, nonimpleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs."

Case details

Sudhamayee Pattnaik vs Bibhu Prasad Sahoo | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 773 | CA 6370 OF 2022 | 16 September 2022 | Justices MR Shah and Krishna Murari

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order I Rule 10 - Plaintiffs are the domius litis - Unless the court suo motu directs to join any other person not party to the suit for effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendants against the wish of the plaintiffs - In case the counter-claim is allowed, it will not be open for the plaintiffs to contend that no decree in the counter-claim be passed in absence of the subsequent purchasers - Non-impleading the subsequent purchasers as defendants on the objection raised by the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs. (Para 5-7)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment