A party cannot challenge further impleadment on grounds it failed to raise against earlier impleadments.

The first respondent, as plaintiff, brought a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the private defendants from interfering with its possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the administration of the trust

During the suit, the plaintiff sought to implead the Joint Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR&CE) Department.

The trial court allowed the application, noting that the HR&CE Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and temple Executive Officer had already been impleaded by an earlier order dated 12 December 2025.

The first defendant challenged the impleadment order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that adding the Joint Commissioner altered the character and scope of the suit.

1. Whether impleading the HR&CE Joint Commissioner altered the character of the suit or exceeded the scope of the relief originally sought

2. Whether the trial court’s order allowing impleadment warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and applied the principle that interference with a trial court’s order is not warranted absent perversity.

It also reasoned that where an earlier order impleading other HR&CE officials had not been challenged, the petitioner could not use a challenge to the subsequent impleadment of another official to raise the same objection to the presence of official defendants.

The trial court had allowed the application because other HR&CE officials and the temple Executive Officer were already parties, and it found that adding the Joint Commissioner would cause no prejudice.

The High Court held that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier order impleading those officials and could not now rely on the asserted change in the suit’s character to challenge the Joint Commissioner’s addition.

Finding no perversity in the trial court’s reasoning, the Court declined to interfere.

It clarified that impleading the officials did not, by itself, change the nature of the suit, while leaving the private defendants’ positions for independent consideration by the trial court.

It directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months from receipt of a copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.