Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908( CPC) cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors. (2025) Case?   

• The appellant is the grandson of Late Jameela Beevi, who was the original defendant in O.S. No. 617 of 1996 filed by respondent no. 1 before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad. 
• On 14th June 1996, Jameela Beevi executed an agreement to sell a shop property to the original plaintiff for ₹6,00,000, with ₹1,50,000 payable within three months. The appellant was a witness to this agreement. 
• The suit property comprises a tiled-roofed shop on 1 cent of land located in Palakkad, Kerala. It was purchased by Jameela Beevi through an assignment deed dated 10th September 1976. 
• Clause 8 of the deed indicated tenancy rights of one of Jameela Beevi’s sons, Late Shahul Hameed (father of the appellant), who was a tenant from 1969 until his death on 1st November 1992. 
• The plaintiff claimed he was always ready to pay the balance but Jameela Beevi failed to execute the sale deed, leading to a suit for specific performance. 
• On 30th June 1998, the Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte in favour of the plaintiff. 
• Jameela Beevi filed I.A. No. 2204 of 1998 to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed on 30th June 1999. 
• The High Court allowed her appeal in CMA No. 125 of 1999, restoring the suit for trial. 
• In her written statement, Jameela Beevi denied the sale agreement and alleged forgery by the plaintiff. 
• On 17th March 2003, the Trial Court decreed the suit again, holding the agreement valid and enforceable. 
• The decree was challenged in RFA No. 281 of 2003, which the High Court dismissed on 2nd August 2008. 
• The Supreme Court also dismissed SLP (C) No. 18880 of 2008 on 13th August 2008, making the decree final. 
• On 30th July 2003, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 2548 of 2003 for execution of the decree under Section 28(5) of the Specific Relief Act and Order XXI Rule 19 of the CPC. 
• Jameela Beevi died on 19th October 2008, and the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 3823 of 2008 on 20th November 2008 to implead her legal heirs. 
• Some legal heirs objected to execution, claiming possession was not granted and the full balance amount was not deposited on time. 
• The Trial Court found that the deposit of ₹97,116 on 30th July 2003 was valid as per the High Court’s earlier order in I.A. No. 931 of 2004 and held possession was implied in the decree. 
• On 11th April 2012, I.A. No. 669 of 2009 seeking rescission of the contract was dismissed. 
• The High Court dismissed CRP No. 233 of 2012 on 14th June 2012, affirming the dismissal of the rescission petition. 
• On 19th July 2012, the appellant filed I.A. No. 2348 of 2012 seeking deletion of his name from the party array, claiming he was a tenant and not a legal heir. 
• On 19th June 2013, the Trial Court dismissed the appellant’s I.A., noting that he had participated in the proceedings since 2008 without objection and was now attempting to delay the execution. 
• The Trial Court held that the plea was barred by constructive res judicata and lacked bona fides. 
• The appellant challenged the order in O.P. (C) No. 2290 of 2013, which was dismissed by the High Court on 29th November 2021. 
• The High Court ruled that the appellant’s impleadment was valid, and his application was barred by res judicata. It also upheld the Trial Court’s rejection of his claim of independent possession. 
• The appellant has now approached the Supreme Court by filing the present appeal against these orders. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The law allows courts to add or remove parties at any stage under Order I Rule 10 CPC, but this power cannot be misused to undo an impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 after several years without initial objection. 
• If the appellant had objections to his impleadment as a legal heir, he should have raised them at the time of impleadment under Sub-rule (2) of Order XXII Rule 4. 
• If the Trial Court had rejected his objection, the appellant could have challenged it by filing a revision application before the High Court. 
• The appellant, despite being impleaded and participating in proceedings since 2008, never objected to his impleadment or raised the claim of being an independent tenant until four years later. 
• He also remained silent during earlier proceedings related to rescission of the contract under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, both at the Trial Court and in the High Court. 
• The Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2004) held that the principle of res judicata applies even at different stages within the same proceeding. 
• While courts can act at "any stage" under Order I Rule 10, the same issue cannot be repeatedly raised at different stages once conclusively settled. 
• The Calcutta High Court in Tarini Charan Bhattacharya v. Kedar Nath Haldar (1928) clarified that even an erroneous legal decision can operate as res judicata if not challenged timely. 
• In contrast to earlier cases where impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4 was clearly mistaken, in the present case, the appellant had no such ground and the correct remedy lay in timely objection, not in belated invocation of Order I Rule 10. 
• Regarding the appellant’s claim that the decree did not include possession, the Court reaffirmed its ruling in Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.(2024)  and Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982), holding that where the seller had exclusive possession, the decree for specific performance implicitly includes the obligation to deliver possession. 
• Hence, the claim that the decree-holder is not entitled to possession lacks merit and is rejected. 
• Both the Trial Court and the High Court correctly rejected the appellant’s application, and the Supreme Court found no legal error in their findings. 
• The appeal is dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 to be paid by the appellant to the Legal Services Authority within two weeks. 
• As the sale deed has already been executed in favour of the respondent no. 1, the Executing Court must now ensure that vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property is delivered to him within two months, using police assistance if necessary. 

What is Order I Rule 10 of CPC? 

About: 

• Order I Rule 10 inter alia empowers the court to allow addition, substitution or deletion of a party to a suit at any stage of the proceedings. 
• Order I Rule 10 (1) provides for when the suit is filed in the name of wrong plaintiff. 
  • This provision allows courts to correct situations where a lawsuit has been filed by the wrong person as the plaintiff or where there is uncertainty about whether the correct plaintiff has filed the suit. 
  • The court has the discretionary power to make corrections at any stage of the legal proceedings, meaning this remedy is available throughout the entire duration of the case. 
  • For the court to exercise this power, it must be satisfied that the error occurred due to a genuine mistake made in good faith, not through any fraudulent or malicious intent. 
  • The court must also determine that substituting or adding the correct plaintiff is necessary for resolving the actual dispute at the heart of the case. 
  • When the court decides to make such changes, it can either substitute the wrong plaintiff with the right one or add additional plaintiffs to the case as deemed appropriate. 
  • The court has the authority to impose whatever terms and conditions it considers fair and just when making these changes to ensure all parties are treated equitably. 
  • This provision serves as a procedural safeguard to prevent cases from being dismissed purely due to technical errors in naming the plaintiff, thereby promoting the substantive resolution of disputes. 
• Sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) grants the court wide discretion to add or remove parties at any stage of the suit proceedings. 
  • The court can strike out or add parties at any stage of proceedings, either on application by a party or on its own initiative. 
  • The court may remove any party that has been improperly joined to the case, whether as plaintiff or defendant. 
  • The court can add any person who should have been included as a party but was omitted from the original suit. 
  • The court may also add parties whose presence is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of all issues in the case. 
  • All such orders are made on terms that the court considers just and fair to all parties involved. 
  • This power ensures proper constitution of parties for comprehensive resolution of disputes. 
• Sub- rule (3) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for consent requirements: 
  • No person can be added as a plaintiff who requires a next friend (legal guardian) to sue on their behalf without that person's explicit consent. 
  • Similarly, no person can be added as a next friend for a plaintiff under disability without their consent to act in that capacity. 
• Sub- rule (4) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for Amendment when defendant is added: 
  • When a new defendant is added to the case, the plaint (statement of claim) must be amended to reflect this change unless the court directs otherwise. 
  • Amended copies of both the summons and the plaint must be served on the newly added defendant. 
  • The court may also order that amended copies be served on the original defendant if it considers this appropriate. 
• Sub – rule (5) of Order I Rule 10 of CPC provides for limitation period for added defendants. 
  • The legal proceedings against any newly added defendant are considered to have commenced only from the date when the summons is served on them. 
  • This provision is subject to the requirements of section 22 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, which governs time limits for legal actions.
• Relevant Case Law: 
  • Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992): 
    • Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 grants courts wide discretionary power to remedy defects in parties and is not limited by the plaintiff's failure to bring necessary parties on record. 
    • A necessary party is defined as one without whom no effective order can be made by the court. 
    • A proper party is one whose absence does not prevent an effective order, but whose presence is required for complete and final decision on all issues. 
    • The addition of parties is generally a matter of judicial discretion based on case facts rather than a question of the court's initial jurisdiction. 
    • A person can only be added as a party if they have a direct legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation, not merely a commercial interest. 
    • For a person to be made a necessary party, their presence must be required so they can be bound by the court's decision, and the questions cannot be effectually settled without them. 
    • The test for adding parties is whether the court's order may directly affect the person's enjoyment of their legal rights. 
    • Having relevant evidence or arguments does not make someone a necessary party - that would only make them a necessary witness. 
    • The rule aims to ensure complete adjudication rather than merely preventing multiplicity of actions, though that may be an incidental benefit.