M/S J N REAL ESTATE v. SHAILENDRA PRADHAN
Clarifies principles for impleading parties under CPC Order I Rule 10(2) and constitutional supervisory jurisdiction.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 611
Decision Date: 22-04-2025
List of Laws
Constitution of India, 1949; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Indian Succession Act, 1925
- Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 277, under which the High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have interfered with the Trial Court's order impleading the original defendant no. 8, given the need to examine the transaction's genuineness during the trial. "Having regard to the material on record, we are of the view that the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the original defendant no.8 (appellant herein) as one of the defendants in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950."
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment extensively discusses Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, concerning the addition or striking out of parties. The Court refers to *Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd.*, (2010) 7 SCC 417, explaining the scope of this rule. It emphasizes the court's discretion to add parties deemed necessary or proper, even against the plaintiff's wishes, citing the concepts of "necessary party" and "proper party" as defined in *Mumbai International Airport*. The judgment also refers to *Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal*, (2005) 6 SCC 733, and *Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co.*, (2007) 10 SCC 82, to clarify the tests for determining a "necessary party" in a suit for specific performance. The court states that a necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed, while a proper party is one whose presence enables the court to effectively adjudicate all matters in dispute. The judgment concludes that the High Court erred in setting aside the Trial Court's order allowing impleadment, as the appellant could be considered a "proper party" necessary for effective adjudication.
- Indian Succession Act, 1925: The judgment mentions Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act in the context of a review petition filed by one Shailendra Pradhan seeking cancellation of a probate issued in favour of the defendant No.1 Sameer Ghosh. The court notes that the submission made by Shri Pancholi that this case has nothing to do with probate and thus ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Gupta (supra) has no application, is not made out.
🔒 For Members Only