A defendant who accepted impleadment and contested the suit cannot later seek deletion from the party array.

The plaintiffs in the underlying suit sought recovery of sums arising from a transaction involving, among other documents, a Debenture Trust Deed and a Registered Mortgage Deed concerning the ‘D’ Schedule property.

The petitioner was impleaded as defendant No. 22 as the purchaser of a flat constructed on that property and filed a written statement contesting the suit.

The plaintiffs later applied under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to delete several defendants, including the petitioner.

The trial court rejected the application, finding the defendants sought to be deleted—except defendant No. 1—to be proper and necessary parties.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether defendant No. 22 could challenge the rejection of the plaintiffs’ application to delete him from the array of parties, having raised no objection to his impleadment and having participated in the suit.

2. Whether, in light of the nature of the dispute and the petitioner’s status as a purchaser of a flat in the ‘D’ Schedule property, the trial court was justified in treating him as a proper and necessary party.

Order I Rule 10 CPC governs the addition or deletion of parties, while Section 151 CPC preserves the court’s inherent powers; Article 227 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The court applied the principle that the trial court may retain parties it considers proper or necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.

It also held, in the circumstances of this case, that a defendant who had not objected to being impleaded and had participated in the proceedings had no right to seek deletion by challenging the rejection of an application filed by the plaintiffs.

The petitioner had been impleaded as the purchaser of a flat on the mortgaged ‘D’ Schedule property, had filed a written statement, and had raised no objection to his impleadment.

The High Court considered that the trial court had assessed the nature of the dispute and the issues involved before concluding that the defendants sought to be deleted were proper and necessary parties.

Since the plaintiffs did not challenge that ruling, and the petitioner’s participation afforded him no right to pursue their deletion application, the High Court found no justification to interfere under Article 227.