Madras HC Upholds Adding Buyer Who Purchased Property During Partition Suit, Saying He May Be Needed For Final Division

Respondents 1–4, as plaintiffs in a partition suit, applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner as defendant 13, alleging that defendant 12 had sold him part of the suit property during the suit’s pendency.

The District Court allowed the application, recording that the petitioner had not contested it. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227, arguing that, despite having entered appearance through counsel, he had no opportunity to oppose the application and that the order gave no reasons.

The application was made under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the addition of parties to a suit; the revision was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the basis that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of a partition suit may be required in the proceedings, particularly if the suit is decreed and the matter reaches final-decree proceedings involving equitable distribution.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s complaint that he had not been allowed to contest the impleadment application.

However, it considered that he had purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and that his presence would be essential if the suit proceeded to final-decree proceedings and equitable distribution.

It therefore concluded that hearing his opposition to impleadment would not materially affect the result and would amount to a useless formality. The Court preserved his opportunity to file a written statement and contest the suit on its merits.

It left the petitioner free to file a written statement and contest the suit; the connected CMP was closed.