Order 1 Rule 10 CPC impleadment is permissible at the appellate stage to effectively adjudicate suit questions.

The plaintiffs filed a suit on November 3, 2022, for declaration of title and possession based on a 2019 sale deed

Prior to the suit’s institution, the petitioner purchased a portion of the suit property from one Tijan Kushwaha via a sale deed dated February 24, 2020

Tijan Kushwaha died before the suit was filed, and his legal representatives (defendants No. 2–6 and 8) failed to disclose the sale to the petitioner in their written statements

The Trial Court decreed the suit on June 19, 2025, affecting the entire property, including the petitioner's portion

During the appellate proceedings, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. to be impleaded. The Appellate Court rejected the application on November 18, 2025, holding that Order 1 Rule 10 applies only to original suits and Order 41 Rule 20 applies only to parties already present in the original suit

1. Whether a person who was not a party to the original suit can be impleaded as a respondent during appellate proceedings under Order 41 Rule 20 of the C.P.C.

2. Whether the Court has the power to implead a necessary party at the appellate stage under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C.

Order 41 Rule 20 of the C.P.C., which allows an Appellate Court to implead interested persons, provided they were parties to the original suit

Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C., which grants courts wide discretion to add a party "at any stage of the proceedings" if their presence is necessary for effective adjudication

Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (2017), which establishes that Order 1 Rule 10 enables the impleadment of vital parties at any stage to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and settle all questions involved in the suit

The Court agreed with the lower court that the petitioner could not be impleaded under Order 41 Rule 20 because he was not a party to the original trial

Since the petitioner purchased the property prior to the institution of the suit, he was a "necessary party" whose title was directly impacted by the decree

The High Court dismissed the respondents' objections regarding the petitioner's alleged prior knowledge of the suit, noting that the legal representatives of the vendor had suppressed the sale transaction during the trial

Applying the principle from Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya, the Court determined that "at any stage" includes appellate proceedings, and impleadment was necessary to effectively settle the controversy and prevent prejudice to the affected purchaser

The High Court set aside the Order dated November 18, 2025, allowed the petitioner’s application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C., directed that the petitioner be impleaded as a respondent in the appeal, and allowed the petition