Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan has held that a subsequent purchaser is not a necessary party in a specific performance suit but can be impleaded as a proper party if their rights may be affected by the adjudication. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.(2025). 

What was the Background of M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. (2025) Case ? 

• The appellant, Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia, filed a writ petition challenging the revenue proceedings. 
• The case pertained to certain land revenue matters where the Board of Revenue, Bihar had passed an order affecting the rights of parties. 
• The appellant had not impleaded certain parties whose interests were directly affected by the proceedings before the Board of Revenue. 
• The question arose whether such parties were necessary to join in the writ proceedings for quashing the order passed by the tribunal. 
• The matter involved determination of procedural requirements for writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• The appellant contended that joinder of all affected parties was not mandatory for adjudication of the writ petition. 
• The respondent, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, maintained that parties whose rights would be directly affected were necessary parties. 
• No alleged offence was involved in this matter as it was purely a civil proceeding concerning revenue matters. 
• The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the High Court's order dismissing the writ petition on grounds of non-joinder of necessary parties.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court observed that the law on necessary or proper parties is well-settled jurisprudence. 
• The Court held that a necessary party is one without whom no effective order can be made. 
• The Court determined that a proper party is one whose presence, though not essential for an effective order, is necessary for complete adjudication. 
• The Court observed that a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions cannot decide against the rights of any party without providing them with a hearing. 
• The Court noted that principles of natural justice demand affected parties be heard even if particular statutes or rules do not explicitly provide for it. 
• The Court observed that any order made without hearing affected parties would be void ab initio. 
• The Court determined that in a writ of certiorari, the High Court cannot vacate an order without the successful party being before it. 
• The Court observed that orders issued behind the back of necessary parties can be ignored by said parties, rendering the proceedings ineffective. 
• The Court concluded that parties whose interests are directly affected are necessary parties to a writ petition. 
• The Court held that impleading proper parties is subject to judicial discretion of the High Court based on circumstances of each case. 
• The Court observed that no offence was established as the matter concerned procedural requirements rather than criminal proceedings. 

What is Necessary Party ? 

• A necessary party is one whose presence is essential for the adjudication of the suit as contemplated under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
• A necessary party is one without whom no effective order or decree can be passed by the Court. 
• The rights and interests of necessary parties are directly and substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings. 
• The Court cannot proceed to adjudicate upon matters affecting the rights of necessary parties in their absence. 
• Any order or decree passed in the absence of a necessary party is void ab initio and unenforceable against such party. 
• The Court is empowered under Order I Rule 10(2) to add any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions involved in the suit. 
• The joinder of necessary parties is not merely procedural but goes to the root of the Court's jurisdiction to pass an effective decree. 
• The determination of whether a party is necessary depends on whether that party's legal presence is indispensable for the grant of relief sought. 
• The principle of audi alteram partem mandates that no person's rights shall be adversely affected without affording them an opportunity to be heard. 
• The Court is duty-bound to ensure that all necessary parties are before it before proceeding with the adjudication of the matter. 
• A necessary party, if not impleaded, may render the entire proceedings infructuous or lead to multiplicity of litigation. 
• The test for determining a necessary party is whether the right to relief is directly and substantially affected by the presence or absence of such a party.