Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, set aside the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that had previously disallowed the impleadment of a real estate firm in an ongoing suit for specific performance. The apex court held that the entity, although not a necessary party, qualified as a proper party and its presence was essential for effective adjudication of the dispute.

The court restored the trial court’s earlier decision permitting the firm’s impleadment and stated: "The presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit." The Bench categorically declared that questions of title and genuineness of documents were matters for trial and should not be pre-judged at the stage of impleadment.

Also Read: Inconsistent Decisions Shake Public Trust | Make Litigation A Punter's Game | Supreme Court Revives Criminal Case Citing Judicial Caprice

The appeals arose from orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 12.12.2023 and 12.06.2023, wherein the High Court had allowed the challenge to the trial court’s decision permitting impleadment of the appellant firm M/s JN Real Estate as a defendant in Regular Civil Suit No. 360-A/2007.

The genesis of the dispute traces back to claims over agricultural land measuring 6.44 acres situated in Village Ahmed Kalan, District Bhopal. The original plaintiff, Adarsh Malhotra, had instituted a civil suit on 01.10.2007 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.11.2006 executed in his favour by original defendant nos. 1 and 2, the sons of the testator Indramohan Pradhan. Reliefs sought included declaration of a rival will and sale deed as void, specific performance, and injunction.

Meanwhile, the original defendant no. 4 (respondent no. 1 before the Court), also claiming rights under a subsequent agreement dated 18.05.2007, initiated litigation, including MJC No. 66/2008 for cancellation of a probate and Regular Civil Suit No. 401-A/2010 for specific performance.

The appellant, M/s JN Real Estate, asserted rights based on a will dated 03.02.2001 executed in favour of Sameer Ghosh (original defendant no. 3), followed by a probate order dated 28.04.2005 and subsequent sale deed dated 30.05.2009 executed by Sameer Ghosh. A probate certificate had been issued on 13.05.2005.

JN Real Estate moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the trial court seeking impleadment, asserting that it had a bona fide interest in the subject property and that its exclusion would prejudice its rights. The application detailed their acquisition and payments made under the sale deed.

Significantly, the original plaintiff did not oppose the impleadment. However, original defendant no. 4 challenged the trial court’s decision which had allowed the impleadment with a cost of Rs. 1000, arguing before the High Court that the sale deed was executed in violation of a High Court status quo order dated 01.08.2008 in Writ Petition No. 8902/2008.

The High Court accepted this challenge, observing that the sale deed presented by the applicant lacked corroborative documentation and found no sufficient basis to consider the applicant either a necessary or proper party. The impleadment was therefore disallowed.

In a detailed exposition on the law governing impleadment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the distinction between "necessary" and "proper" parties. Quoting Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd., the Court recorded:

"A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit."

The Court found the High Court’s evaluation of the sale deed and supporting documentation to be premature. The Bench observed: "The genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness of the documents is to be looked into in the course of the trial."

Addressing the High Court’s inference that the sale deed had been executed in contravention of a prior status quo order, the Supreme Court held that such matters were to be dealt with during the trial and could not form the basis to bar impleadment.

It further quoted the findings in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. to stress the non-absolute nature of impleadment rules: "If a third party can show a fair semblance of title or interest, he can certainly file an application for impleadment... Clearly, such a view cannot be countenanced."

The Bench also recorded that the original plaintiff did not oppose the impleadment application: "We may only say that the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit. We say so while giving additional regard to the fact that the original plaintiff has not opposed the impleadment of the original defendant no. 8 in his suit."

Also Read: Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismisses plea against charge framing | Trial judges must write or dictate interim orders themselves says Court

The Court stated the necessity to allow impleadment where it serves the interest of complete justice and avoids multiplicity of proceedings.

Allowing the appeal, the Court stated:

"These appeals succeed and are hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.12.2023 and 12.06.2023 respectively in Review Petition No. 717 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No.5567/2018 respectively passed by the High Court are set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored."

Pending applications were disposed of.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: C.U. Singh, Senior Advocate; Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate; S. Sukumar, Advocate; Sreegesh M.K., Advocate; Anand Sukumar, AOR; Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate; Ruche Anand, Advocate

For the Respondents: Navin Pahwa, Senior Advocate; Vivek Singh, AOR; Ritik Dwivedi, Advocate; Tanvi Anand, Advocate; Rida Shafique, Advocate; Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR; Syed Faraz Alam, Advocate; Atharva Gaur, Advocate; Aayushman Aggarwal, Advocate

Case Title: M/S J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 611

Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 5405-5406 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.12205-12206/2024)

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]