Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.1, r.10 – ‘Proper party’ vis-à-vis ‘necessary party’ – Subsequent purchaser – Suit for specific performance – Appellant sought impleadment as defendant in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell – Allowed by Trial Court – Order set aside by High Court – Interference with:
Held: A party seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be 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 – In the instant case, the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit – Also, the original plaintiff did not oppose the impleadment of the appellant in his suit – High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the appellant as one of the defendants as the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into during the trial – Impugned orders passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored. [Paras 32-34]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.