Case Note & Summary
A civil revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018. The revision petitioners were the plaintiffs in the underlying suit, while respondents 1 to 6 were the defendants and respondent 7 was the proposed party. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession, and correction of revenue entries. The schedule property was situated at Korlagunta village, Galiveedu Mandal, YSR District, comprising S.No.170/1 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents out of Ac.1.32 cents, S.No.170/2 to an extent of Ac.1.16 cents, and S.No.32 to an extent of Ac.3.45 cents. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.72 of 2025 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to implead Peram Thanuj Yaswanth Reddy as defendant No.7. They alleged that defendant No.2 had executed a nominal deed in favour of the proposed party in respect of the schedule property, making him a proper and necessary party. The defendants and the proposed party filed counters denying execution of any nominal deed and contending that the application was vague and not maintainable without particulars of the document and schedule property. The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the plaintiffs did not mention the nature or date of the alleged document and did not annex a copy; it further observed that any transfer during pendency of the suit is subject to the result of the suit and non-adding would not cause prejudice to the plaintiffs. The point for determination in the revision was whether the impugned order suffered from perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference. The petitioners argued that the proposed party was essential for effective adjudication, that the first defendant's written statement admitted execution of a Registered Sale Deed dated 05.11.2018 in favour of the proposed party, and that the additional written statement specifically contended that the proposed party was necessary and the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder. The respondents argued that no nominal deed was executed and that the application was vague and not maintainable. The High Court quoted Order I Rule 10 CPC and observed that a court may add any person whose presence may be necessary for complete and effective adjudication. It noted that a subsequent purchaser is often considered a proper party, though not always a necessary party without whom the suit cannot proceed. The court further observed that transfer of property during the pendency of a suit is subject to the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the purchaser is bound by the decision of the court even if not formally added. It emphasized that addition of parties depends upon judicial discretion exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. The available judgment text ends mid-paragraph and does not record the final operative direction; therefore, the final decision is not mentioned in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Impleadment of Proper or Necessary Party - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Court may add any person whose presence before the court may be necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 - The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' application to implead a subsequent purchaser as defendant No.7, citing lack of document particulars and no prejudice due to lis pendens. The High Court observed that addition of parties depends upon judicial discretion exercised in facts and circumstances of the case (Paras 11-14). B) Transfer of Property - Doctrine of Lis Pendens - Section 52 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Transfer of property during pendency of a suit is subject to the decision of the court and the purchaser is bound by the decree even if not formally added - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52 - The High Court noted that even if defendant No.2 executed a document in favour of the proposed party during pendency of the suit, such document is subject to the result of the present suit and non-adding would not cause prejudice to the plaintiffs (Paras 14 and 5 of trial court order). C) Civil Procedure - Requirements of Impleadment Application - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Applicant must furnish nature, date and copy of alleged document; vague allegations without particulars are insufficient - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 - The trial court held that the plaintiffs did not mention nature or date of the nominal deed and did not annex a copy, making the application vague; this ground was challenged in revision (Paras 4-6). D) Civil Procedure - Subsequent Purchaser as Proper Party - Order I Rule 10 CPC - Admission of registered sale deed in written statement may establish direct interest of proposed party - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rule 10 - The plaintiffs contended that the first defendant's additional written statement admitted execution of registered sale deed dated 05.11.2018 in favour of the proposed party, making him proper and necessary; the High Court noted this contention while discussing judicial discretion (Paras 7, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 06.03.2025 in I.A.No.72 of 2025 in O.S.No.3 of 2018 passed by the V Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Rayachoty suffers from perversity, illegality, irregularity or impropriety requiring interference; whether proposed party/respondent No.7 is a proper and necessary party to the suit.
Law Points
- Order I Rule 10 CPC permits court to add proper or necessary party at any stage
- Subsequent purchaser is a proper party though not always necessary
- Transfer pendente lite is subject to doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 Transfer of Property Act 1882
- Addition of parties is a matter of judicial discretion
- Application for impleadment must disclose nature date and copy of document
