Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser in First Appeal Confirmed to Prevent Multiplicity of Litigations

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a civil suit [C.S. No.166 of 2012] which was decreed in her favour by the Trial Court

The Defendant No. 20 challenged this decree by filing a First Appeal [R.F.A. No.3 of 2021]

During the pendency of the appeal, Opposite Party No. 1 (Biswambar Rout) filed an application for impleadment as Respondent No. 21, claiming he had purchased the suit properties from Defendant No. 20

The 1st Appellate Court allowed this impleadment via an order dated 03.05.2023

The petitioner subsequently filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the impleadment order

Whether the order impleading a lis pendens purchaser as a respondent in the First Appeal was legally sustainable or required interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

It applied the principle of "avoidance of multiplicity of litigations," which permits the impleadment of necessary or proper parties to ensure a final and comprehensive adjudication of disputes

The Court reviewed the submissions of both parties regarding the impleadment of the purchaser (Opposite Party No. 1)

Rather than finding a jurisdictional error or illegality in the lower court's order, the High Court determined that impleading the purchaser was a "proper" step to avoid a future multiplicity of litigations regarding the same property

The Court concluded that the interests of justice would be better served by ensuring a speedy resolution of the main appeal rather than overturning the procedural order of impleadment

However, the Court directed the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge, Cuttack, to dispose of the First Appeal (R.F.A. No.3 of 2021) as expeditiously as possible, specifically within a period of three months from the date of filing the certified copy of the judgment