Subsequent Impleadment Application Is Maintainable Following Plaint Amendment Despite Unconditional Withdrawal of Prior Application

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit (RCS No. 229-A of 2023) regarding property that the petitioner purportedly purchased during the pendency of the litigation.

On 30.11.2023, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the petitioner, but withdrew it unconditionally on 18.12.2023 because the plaint lacked corresponding pleadings regarding the sale.

Subsequently, the trial court allowed an amendment to the plaint on 01.05.2024 to include facts about the petitioner's purchase.

Following this amendment, the plaintiffs filed a second impleadment application, which the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior, allowed on 24.01.2025.

The petitioner challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the subsequent application was barred due to the earlier unconditional withdrawal.

1. Whether the unconditional withdrawal of an earlier impleadment application bars the filing of a subsequent application for the same relief under Order I Rule 10 CPC after the plaint has been amended to include a new cause of action.

2. Whether the trial court's order impleading the petitioner as a necessary and proper party suffered from jurisdictional error or patent illegality.

The court primarily applied Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the addition of necessary and proper parties to prevent multiplicity of litigation.

It relied on the principle that Res Judicata does not apply where there was no prior adjudication on merits.

The court applied the standard of Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, as elucidated in Chameli Devi & Another v. Jivrail Mian & Others (2025 SCC OnLine SC 945), which restricts interference to cases of jurisdictional error or palpable illegality and prohibits substituting the court’s view for a plausible view taken by the trial court.

The High Court observed that while the first impleadment application was withdrawn unconditionally, the circumstances changed significantly thereafter. At the time of the first application, the plaint did not contain averments regarding the petitioner’s interest in the suit property.

The subsequent amendment of the plaint on 01.05.2024, which allowed the plaintiffs to challenge the petitioner's purchase during pendency, created a "fresh cause of action" for impleadment.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner had purchased a portion of the suit land, she was both a necessary and proper party; failing to implead her would lead to a multiplicity of proceedings.

The court found that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to meet the ends of justice and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error that would warrant interference under Article 227.

The Court answered the issues in the negative, affirming that the trial court's decision was a plausible exercise of discretionary power. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the miscellaneous petition, upheld the order dated 24.01.2025, and denied the grant of any costs.