A person specifically pleaded to be in actual possession is a necessary party under Order I Rule 10(2).

The petitioners were plaintiffs in a civil suit seeking vacant possession of land bearing Khasra No. 60/5, measuring 0.020 hectares, situated at Village Chhote Atarmuda, District Raigarh. They alleged that Respondent No. 1 had encroached upon the suit land, relying principally on a demarcation report dated 20 July 2023.

Respondent No. 1 pleaded in his written statement that he had purchased the land from Bahadur Singh by a registered sale deed dated 26 December 2003, but had subsequently agreed to sell the suit land to Kripa Ram Nirala, received consideration from him, and handed over possession in 2008. He therefore contended that Kripa Ram Nirala, being in actual physical possession, was a necessary party to the suit.

The trial court, by order dated 30 September 2024, allowed Respondent No. 1’s application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), and directed that Kripa Ram Nirala be impleaded as a defendant. The petitioners’ application under Section 114 CPC seeking review of that order was rejected on 6 May 2026. The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the trial court was justified in impleading Kripa Ram Nirala under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC on the basis of the specific pleading that he was in actual physical possession of the suit land?

Whether the petitioners, as dominus litis, could resist the impleadment of a person alleged to be in possession of the suit property?

Whether the orders dated 30 September 2024 and 6 May 2026 disclosed any illegality, jurisdictional error, or ground warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution?

The court applied Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which empowers the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to add any person whose presence is necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of all questions involved in the suit.

Although the plaintiff is generally the dominus litis and may choose the persons against whom relief is sought, that principle is subject to the court’s power to implead necessary or proper parties under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. The court relied on Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited, (2010) 7 SCC 417, which recognises both the plaintiff’s general right to select parties and the exception permitting impleadment where a person’s presence is necessary for complete adjudication.

The court also considered the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, under which interference is warranted only where the subordinate court has acted illegally, without jurisdiction, or committed a material procedural error.

Section 114 CPC governed the petitioners’ review application.

The High Court held that the trial court had acted on a specific and material pleading by Respondent No. 1 that he was not in physical possession of the suit land and that Kripa Ram Nirala was the person actually occupying it.

Since the suit sought vacant possession, the presence of the alleged occupant was considered necessary for effectively and completely determining the dispute and for granting an enforceable relief, if warranted.

The petitioners’ reliance on the demarcation report and their status as dominus litis did not override the court’s power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, particularly when the defendant had disputed his possession and identified another person as the actual occupant.

The High Court consequently found no illegality or jurisdictional error in the trial court’s impleadment order and no basis for interference under Article 227.

The trial court’s order dated 30 September 2024 impleading him under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was therefore upheld. The rejection of the review application dated 6 May 2026 was also left undisturbed. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.