Order I Rule 10 cannot circumvent Order XXII substitution by converting a deceased plaintiff’s heirs into defendants.

The petitioners, defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9–11 in Title Suit No. 16 of 2016 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court at Contai, challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 29 October 2025.

The suit was instituted for partition of the suit property, whereas the defendants contended that the property exclusively belonged to them by virtue of registered conveyances.

The petitioners had filed counter-claims under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), and the plaintiffs had filed written statements in response.

Following the death of plaintiff No. 2, the surviving plaintiffs applied under Order I Rule 10 CPC to add the deceased plaintiff’s legal heirs as party-defendants, instead of having them substituted as plaintiffs under Order XXII CPC. The Trial Court allowed that application.

The petitioners contended that the impleadment would convert the deceased plaintiff’s legal heirs into co-defendants and thereby defeat their pending counter-claims, which were directed against the plaintiffs.

Whether the legal heirs of a deceased plaintiff could be added as party-defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC when the specific procedure for substitution of a deceased plaintiff is governed by Order XXII Rules 3 and 9 CPC.

Whether such impleadment could be permitted where it would alter the legal status of the proposed parties from plaintiffs to co-defendants and thereby prejudice or defeat counter-claims already filed under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC.

Whether the legal heirs were necessary parties whose presence was indispensable for the effective and complete adjudication of the suit.

The Court held that Order XXII Rule 3 CPC provides the specific mechanism for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff on record where the right to sue survives, while Order XXII Rule 3(2) contemplates abatement where substitution is not sought within the prescribed period; Order XXII Rule 9 governs setting aside such abatement.

Order I Rule 10 CPC confers a discretionary power to add necessary or proper parties for effective adjudication, but it cannot ordinarily be used to circumvent the specific statutory mechanism under Order XXII.

Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, a counter-claim must be directed against the plaintiff; it is not maintainable if directed solely against a co-defendant.

The Court relied on Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar , (2006) 12 SCC 734, and the subsequent decisions in Rajul Manoj Shah alias Rajeshwari Rasiklal Sheth v. Kiranbhai Shakrabhai Patel , 2025 INSC 1109, and Sanjay Tiwari v. Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao , 2025 INSC 1310, for this principle.

The Court reasoned that the death of plaintiff No. 2 attracted the specific statutory scheme under Order XXII, and that the legal heirs’ failure to seek substitution could result in abatement insofar as the deceased plaintiff was concerned.

Order I Rule 10 could not be used to convert persons who had not sought to continue the suit as plaintiffs into defendants.

Since the petitioners’ counter-claims had already been filed against the plaintiffs and answered by the plaintiffs, changing the legal heirs’ status to co-defendants would risk rendering the counter-claims non-maintainable under Order VIII Rule 6A, as a counter-claim cannot be directed solely against a co-defendant.

The proposed parties were not shown to be indispensable merely because they were heirs of the deceased plaintiff, particularly when the Code itself prescribed the consequences of non-substitution.

The Trial Court therefore improperly exercised its discretionary power under Order I Rule 10 in a manner that defeated the petitioners’ existing procedural rights.

It directed the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with Order XXII CPC and not to alter the array of parties in a manner inconsistent with the petitioners’ pending counter-claims.