Plaintiff as Dominus Litis May Implead Parties Holding Pre-Suit Agreements to Purchase Disputed Property

Respondents No. 1 to 3 (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against Respondent No. 4 (Defendant No. 1) for declaration of title, permanent injunction, and partition

During the proceedings, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC to implead the Petitioners (proposed defendants) because the Petitioners had entered into an agreement to purchase the suit property from Defendant No. 1 on 15/10/2024

The Trial Court at Tilda allowed this application on 17/03/2026

The Petitioners challenged this order via a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending they were not heard before the order was passed and that their impleadment would affect the suit's pecuniary jurisdiction

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in impleading the Petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC without providing them an opportunity of hearing.

2. Whether the impleadment of the Petitioners as necessary or proper parties was legally sustainable.

Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the addition of parties, which allows the court to join any person whose presence may be necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit

The legal doctrine of Dominus Litis, which establishes that the plaintiff is the master of their suit and has the prerogative to choose against whom they seek relief, provided the parties are necessary or proper for the adjudication of the dispute

The Court rejected the Petitioners' claim of a violation of natural justice, noting that the Trial Court's record indicated they had received notice, appeared on 18/02/2025, and expressed their intention to participate in the proceedings; thus, the claim that they were not heard was "misconceived"

Regarding the merits of impleadment, the Court reasoned that since the Petitioners had a subsisting agreement to purchase the suit land from the original defendant, they qualified as proper parties whose presence would prevent a multiplicity of proceedings

The Court emphasized that the plaintiff is the Dominus litis, and if the plaintiff considers the impleadment of subsequent purchasers/agreement-holders necessary to protect the subject matter of the suit, the court should generally permit it

The Court further held that any specific defenses, such as challenges to pecuniary jurisdiction, could be raised by the Petitioners in their written statements rather than by blocking their impleadment at the threshold

The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit