Order I Rule 10(2) permits impleadment of proper parties despite the plaintiff’s dominus litis status.

The petitioner, Kimi Sarda, instituted a title suit seeking declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property, eviction of the defendants, and permanent injunction. The suit was registered as Title Suit No. 91/2013.

During its pendency, Krishna Sharma, the proposed respondent No. 1, applied under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for impleadment as a defendant. He asserted that he had occupied a room situated over the suit property as a monthly tenant of respondent No. 2, had executed a tenancy agreement, and was running an electrical goods shop there.

By order dated 10.09.2023 in Misc. Case No. 102/2023, the Trial Court allowed the application and directed his impleadment, requiring amendment of the plaint.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that she was dominus litis and that the proposed respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

Whether the Court’s power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead a necessary or proper party overrides the plaintiff’s general right, as dominus litis, to choose the parties against whom the suit is brought.

Whether the proposed respondent, being in possession of a room over the suit property and conducting business there, was a proper party whose presence would enable complete, effective and adequate adjudication of the dispute.

Whether the Trial Court’s order impleading the proposed respondent warranted interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court 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 a person whose presence is necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating all questions involved in the suit, including a necessary or proper party.

A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, whereas a proper party is one whose presence enables complete, effective and adequate adjudication, even though no relief need necessarily be granted against that person.

The Court relied principally on Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, which holds that although the plaintiff is generally dominus litis, that principle is subject to the Court’s power under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead necessary or proper parties.

Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, exceptional, and to be exercised sparingly, particularly where the subordinate Court’s discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to principles of natural justice.

The Court held that the dominus litis principle is only a general rule and does not restrict the Court’s statutory discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

Since Krishna Sharma was admittedly in possession of a room situated over the suit premises and was carrying on business there, the outcome of the title, eviction and injunction proceedings could directly affect his possessory and tenancy-related interests.

His presence would therefore assist the Trial Court in completely, effectively and adequately deciding the matters in dispute, making him at least a proper party, irrespective of whether he was a necessary party.

The Trial Court had considered the relevant circumstances and exercised its discretion for valid reasons.

The revision petition was dismissed, the interim stay of the suit was vacated, and a copy of the order was directed to be forwarded to the Trial Court.

The parties were left to bear their own costs.