A claimed development agreement outside the suit’s subject matter does not make its claimant a necessary or proper party.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 brought O.S. No. 55 of 2013 seeking a declaration that certain registered sale deeds were null and void. The suit was dismissed on 1 December 2018, and they appealed in R.A. No. 66 of 2023.

The petitioner applied under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to be impleaded as a respondent, asserting that he had entered into a Joint Development Agreement with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 concerning the suit property and that the appeal’s outcome could affect his rights.

The First Appellate Court rejected the application on 28 March 2023. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court considered Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, under which a person may be added as a party where their presence is necessary or proper for adjudicating the questions involved in the proceeding.

It also stated that plaintiffs are the masters of their case and may seek relief against persons they consider aggrieved; on the facts, the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit or appeal.

The Court noted that the trial judgment contained no reference to a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and that such an agreement was not the subject matter of O.S. No. 55 of 2013.

Given the nature of the suit and the plaintiffs’ position that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person, the Court concluded that he was neither a necessary nor a proper party. It therefore found no ground to interfere with the First Appellate Court’s order.

It reserved liberty to the petitioner to pursue his grievance before an appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings.