The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal in which a party sought to be added as a defendant in a money recovery suit, reiterating the fundamental principle under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the plaintiff, being dominus litis or the master of the suit, cannot be compelled to add a party against whom no relief is claimed. The bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision which had set aside a trial court order permitting the impleadment of the appellant as a defendant, observing that it is for the plaintiffs who instituted the suit to choose their adversaries and that they may do so at their own risk if they omit to array proper and necessary parties. In the case at hand, the original suit was filed by the legal heirs of a property owner against M/s Kishore Engineering Company, a partnership firm occupying commercial premises in Mumbai, for recovery of unpaid service charges for furniture and fixtures. NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC claiming to be the successor company of the partnership firm under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, and asserting that it was now in occupation of the premises. While the trial court allowed impleadment in 2018, the Bombay High Court, in 2022 proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, set aside that order, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.
In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated established legal principles regarding necessary and proper parties to a suit. The Court, relying on precedents including Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733, explained that a necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence may be helpful for complete and effective adjudication. Applying this law, the Court found that the appellant was neither a necessary party nor a proper party to the suit because the claim was a simple money recovery claim against a specific entity, and an effective decree could be passed in the absence of the appellant. The Supreme Court observed that the plaintiffs were not claiming any relief against the appellant and there was no material to indicate that the relief claimed against the partnership firm, if granted, would need to be implemented against the appellant. Since the appellant had not demonstrated that it was the successor entity or that the partnership firm had ceased to exist or could not represent itself in the suit, the Court found there was no basis to treat it as a proper party.
The Supreme Court’s decision affirmed the principle that a plaintiff, as dominus litis, has the autonomy to decide against whom to sue, and cannot be forced to litigate against parties not chosen by them, unless the party sought to be added is shown to be necessary or proper in terms of enabling effective adjudication of the dispute. The Court emphasized that without relief claimed against a prospective defendant, there is no justification for compelling the plaintiff to include that party in the suit. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, maintaining the High Court’s order that had struck down the trial court’s direction to implead the appellant.
The judgment reinforced that Order I Rule 10 of the CPC vests discretionary power in the court to add or strike out parties, but that exercise of this power cannot override the basic tenet that the suit belongs to the plaintiff and he or she cannot be compelled to add a defendant who is neither necessary nor proper to the suit’s effective outcome. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores that where relief is not sought against a party, and the plaintiff chooses not to array that party as a defendant, such choice is at the plaintiff’s own risk, but the court should not compel impleadment against the plaintiff’s wishes absent compelling legal grounds.
The Court’s conclusion aligns with the broader jurisprudence on Order I Rule 10 of the CPC which establishes that while a court may add parties when necessary to enable effective adjudication, this discretion must be exercised in accordance with the roles of necessary and proper parties and cannot be used to force a plaintiff to litigate against his or her choice. In this context, the Supreme Court’s judgment confirms that the appellant, having failed to demonstrate a compelling legal basis for inclusion as a party, cannot be permitted to be impleaded as defendant.
The appeal was therefore dismissed by the Supreme Court, affirming the Bombay High Court’s setting aside of the trial court order and upholding the proposition that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit against their wishes when no relief is claimed against that party.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.