Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a suit for possession filed in 1974, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs in 2011. The defendants appealed, and during the pendency, various transfers of rights in the suit property occurred through registered deeds and operation of law. By 2012, the applicant partnership firm, Yash Shree Realtors, acquired all rights in the property from the original plaintiffs and others. In 2025, the applicant filed an application under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking impleadment as a respondent in the appeal, with a delay of 14 years from the decree and appeal filing. The core legal issue was whether such impleadment should be permitted despite the long delay. The applicant argued that Order XXII Rule 10, governing devolution of interest other than by death, has no time limit, and refusal would lead to abatement. The appellants opposed, citing delay, collusion, and potential multiplicity of proceedings. The court analyzed the submissions, noting that Order XXII Rule 10 does not prescribe limitation, and impleading the applicant while retaining original plaintiffs would address apprehensions without prejudice. The court allowed the application, impleading the applicant as a respondent and retaining the original plaintiffs to ensure all interests are represented and objections can be raised during the appeal hearing.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Order XXII Rule 10 CPC - No Time Limit for Application - The applicant, a partnership firm, sought impleadment as respondent in an appeal after acquiring rights in the suit property through registered deeds, with a delay of 14 years from the decree and appeal filing. The court held that Order XXII Rule 10, which deals with devolution of interest other than by death, does not prescribe any time limit, and thus limitation does not apply. The application was allowed to avoid abatement and ensure proper adjudication, with the original plaintiffs retained to address any objections. (Paras 13, 18-20) B) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings - The appellants argued that impleading the applicant could lead to multiplicity of proceedings if original plaintiffs later challenged the firm's existence. The court addressed this by retaining all original plaintiffs as respondents while impleading the applicant as an additional respondent, ensuring all interests are represented and objections can be raised during the appeal hearing. This approach was deemed to meet the ends of justice without prejudice to the appellants. (Paras 19-20) C) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Parties - Prejudice and Delay - The appellants contended that the delay of 14 years and alleged collusion warranted rejection of the impleadment application. The court found no prejudice to the appellants if the applicant was impleaded, as the original plaintiffs could still pursue the appeal on behalf of the applicant based on registered documents. The delay was not fatal due to the absence of a time limit under Order XXII Rule 10, and the application was allowed to prevent abatement. (Paras 15-16, 20)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the applicant-YSR (successor in interest) be permitted to be added under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 as respondent in appeal after long delay of 14 years?
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The court allowed the application, permitting the applicant-YSR to be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal while retaining the original plaintiffs as respondents. The order was dictated in open court on 5 March 2026.
