I.

General Principles Under Order I Rule 10 Of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Order I Rules 9 & 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read as under:
9. Misjoinder and non-joinder:
No Suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court
may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests
of the parties actually before it:
Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to non-joinder of a necessary party.
10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff:

1. Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it
is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court
may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona
fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute
so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms
as the Court thinks just.

2. Court may strike out or add parties.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings,
either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear
to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to
have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the
Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to
adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

3. No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend
of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

4. Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.- Where a defendant is added, the plaint
shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be
necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on
the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.

5. Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the
proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun
only on the service of the summons.

The provision of sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , empowers
the Court to strike out the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or
defendant and also when the name of any person ought to have been joined as plaintiff or
defendant or in a case where a person whose presence before the Court may be necessary in
order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the
questions involved in the Suit.
Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables the Court to add or
substitute:

1. Any person as a party at any stage of the proceedings;

2. The person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court
effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the
Suit.

This also enables the Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

It is a well-settled principle that it is for the plaintiff in a Suit to bring the parties against whom
he has any dispute and to implead them as defendants in the Suit filed for necessary relief. He
cannot be compelled to face litigation with the persons against whom he has no dispute.

However, if any third party is likely to suffer any injustice, on account of the outcome of the Suit,
he is entitled to get himself impleaded. The question as to whether an individual is a proper or
necessary party to a Suit would depend upon the nature of relief claimed in the Suit and the
right or interest projected by the persons, who propose to get themselves impleaded.

There is many a time a casual approach to the matter of applications seeking impleadment of
third parties in civil proceedings. Such impleadment applications tend to be dealt with
frequently without checking the law on the subject and without determining whether the third
party can be impleaded or not. The common refrain is, It is only a joinder application.
Impleadment of third parties who are not entitled in law to be impleaded can result in
derailment or protection of proceedings. However, the law on impleadment is quite well settled
by the Supreme Court in a number of decisions.

The general principles of law set out by the Supreme Court in the context of Order I Rule 10 (2)
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are enumerated herein below:
1. The Dominus Litus Rule:
The general rule is that the plaintiff is the dominus litus and may choose the persons
against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be forced to sue a person against whom
he does not seek any relief. Hence, a person who is not a party has no right to be
impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law
or unless a party proposed to be added has a direct and legal interest in the controversy
involved in the Suit. [Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay, 1992 (2) SCC 524, Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC
 733, Mumbai International Airport Vs. Regency Convention Centre, (2010) 7 SCC
417].

2. O. I R. 10 (2) Of Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908; An Exception To

Dominus Litus Rule:
This general rule of the plaintiff being the dominus litus is subject to the provisions of
Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per which, the Court may, at any
stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on
such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any person
who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence
before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

Order I Rule 10 (2) therefore carves out an exception to the general rule and gives the
Court the discretion to add as a party a person who ought to have been joined or whose
presence is necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating all questions involved
in the Suit, in other words, a party who is found to be a necessary party or a proper
party. It is required to be noted that Order I Rule 10 (2) does not confer a right upon a
non-party to be joined but is about judicial discretion to add a party.

3. Court's Limited Discretion:

The discretion of the Court under Order I Rule 10 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is
limited. It is only if a party is a necessary or a proper party that they can be directed by
the Court to be joined in the proceeding. If a person is not found to be a necessary or
proper party, the Court has no jurisdiction to order impleadment against the wishes of
the plaintiff. [Vidur Impex Vs. Tosh Apartments, (2012) 8 SCC 384].

The Court is therefore duty bound to arrive at a conclusion that a party is a necessary
party or proper party before it can pass an order directing impleadment contrary to the
plaintiff's wishes. The discretion to either allow or reject an application for impleadment
of a party is required to be exercised according to settled principles of law and
according to reason and fair play. ['Mumbai International Airport Vs. Regency
Convention Centre, (supra), CCI Vs. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744]

4. Necessary Party:
The Supreme Court has held that a necessary party is one without whose presence no
effective decree can be passed and without whom the Suit itself would be liable to be
dismissed. It has also been held that the reason which makes it necessary to make such
a person a party to an action is so that it is bound by the result of the action and the
 question to be settled, therefore, should be incapable of being completed and
effectually settled unless he is a party.

In Suits relating to property, in order that a third party may be impleaded, they should
have a direct or legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation as distinguished from
a mere commercial interest.

[Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum, AIR 1958 SC 886]. Legal interest is
interpreted to mean that the result of the Suit affects the third party legally.

Where, however, the subject matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or

legal character, the rule of present interest does not apply with full force since the result
of a declaratory decree on the question of status affects not only the parties before the
Court but generations to come.

A larger Bench of the Supreme Court has evolved these two tests to be satisfied
for determining whether a person is a necessary party:

1. There must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the
controversies involved in the proceedings,
2. No effective decree can be passed in the absence of such party.

It has been held that what makes a person a necessary party is not merely that it has an
interest in the correct solution of some question involved in the litigation or has some
legal contentions to advance or has evidence to give on any of the questions involved.
Moreover, a person whose object is to prosecute its own cause of action or who the
defendant wants to prosecute cannot be joined for merely that reason.

5. Proper Party:
A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose
presence is necessary for a complete, effective and proper adjudication on the
questions involved in the proceeding. A Court does not have jurisdiction to join a person
whose presence is not necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of all the
questions involved in the dispute and this question, i.e. whether his presence is
necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of all questions, is to be decided
keeping in mind the scope of the suit.

The phrase all the questions involved means only the controversies with regard to the
right which is set up and the relief claimed on one side and denied on the other and not
the controversies which may arise between the plaintiffs inter se, or between the
defendants inter se, or between the plaintiffs and third parties or between the
 defendants and third parties. Further, in the case of a proper party, the court has a
discretion to allow or reject the application and a party has no right to insist upon being
impleadment merely because his being a proper party.

6. When Non-Joinder Fatal:

Order I Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that no suit shall be defeated by
reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every Suit deal
with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties
actually before it.

However, it contains a proviso to the effect that nothing in the rule shall apply to non-
joinder of a necessary party. Therefore, while non-joinder of necessary parties may
prove fatal, the non-joinder of proper parties may not be fatal to the proceedings, but
would certainly adversely affect interest of justice and complete adjudication of the
proceedings before the appropriate forum.

7. Multiplicity:
The main object of impleadment of a party is not to prevent multiplicity of proceedings
although it is also one of the objects. [Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, (1999) 2 SCC 577]
Therefore, impleadment cannot be permitted solely on this ground de hors the
aforesaid principles in regard to necessary or proper party.

II. Law As To Impleadment In Suits For Specific Performance:

A question which very often raises its head in suits for specific performance is whether a
stranger to an agreement for sale can be added as a party in a Suit for specific performance of
an agreement for sale.
Some of the provisions which would be relevant in the context of impleadment of parties in
suits for specific performance of agreements for sale are reproduced herein below.

Sections 15 and 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963:

15. Who may obtain specific performance:
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the specific performance of a contract may be
obtained by:

a. any party thereto;

b. the representative-in-interest or the principal, of any party thereto:

 Provided that where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is
a material ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest
shall not be assigned, his representative in interest or his principal shall not be entitled
to specific performance of the contract, unless such party has already performed his
part of the contract, or the performance thereof by his representative in interest, or his
principal, has been accepted by the other party;

c. where the contract is a settlement on marriage, or a compromise of doubtful rights

between members of the same family, any person beneficially entitled thereunder;

d. where the contract has been entered into by a tenant for life in due exercise of a power,
the remainder man;

e. a reversioner in possession, where the agreement is a covenant entered into with his
predecessor-in-title and the reversioner is entitled the benefit of such covenant;

f. a reversioner in remainder, where the agreement is such a covenant, and the

reversioner is entitled to the benefit thereof and will sustain material injury by reason of
its breach;

(f-a) when a limited liability partnership has entered into a contract and subsequently
becomes amalgamated with another limited liability partnership, the new limited
liability partnership which arises out of the amalgamation.

g. when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated
with another company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;

h. when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation, entered into a
contract for the purposes of the company, and such contract is warranted by the terms
of the incorporation, the company:

Provided that the company has accepted the contract and has communicated such acceptance
to the other party to the contract.

19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title:
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be
enforced against-

a. either party thereto;

b. any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract,
except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice
 of the original contract;

c. any person claiming under a title which, though prior to the contract and known to the
plaintiff, might have been displaced by the defendant;
(c-a) when a limited liability partnership has entered into a contract and subsequently
becomes amalgamated with another limited liability partnership, the new limited
liability partnership which arises out of the amalgamation.

d. when a company has entered into a contract and subsequently becomes amalgamated
with another company, the new company which arises out of the amalgamation;

e. when the promoters of a company have, before its incorporation entered into a contract
for the purpose of the company and such contract is warranted by the terms of the
incorporation, the company:

Provided that the company has accepted the contract and communicated such acceptance to
the other party to the contract.

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:

52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto:
During the pendency in any Court having authority within the limits of India excluding the State
of Jammu and Kashmir or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any
Suit or proceeding which is not collusive and in which any right to immovable property is
directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with
by any party to the Suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under
the decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and
on such terms as it may impose.

Explanation:
For the purposes of this Section, the pendency of a Suit or proceeding shall be deemed to
commence from the date of the presentation of the plaint or the institution of the proceeding
in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and to continue until the Suit or proceeding has been
disposed of by a final decree or order and complete satisfaction or discharge of such decree or
order has been obtained, or has become unobtainable by reason of the expiration of any
period of limitation prescribed for the execution thereof by any law for the time being in force.

Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

10. Procedure in case of assignment before final order in Suit.

1. In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the

pendency of a Suit, the Suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the
person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
 2. The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be deemed to be an
interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of sub-rule
(1).

The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in regard to impleadment in Suits for specific
performance of agreement for sale are as under:

1. The scope of a Suit for specific performance cannot be enlarged to convert the same
into a Suit for title and possession, A third party or a stranger to the contract could not
be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of a different character.
[Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Vs. Kiran Construction Co., (2008) 13 SCC 658].

A person who claims independently and adversely to the claim of the vendor would not
fall within any of the categories provided for in Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
which is exhaustive on the question as to who are the parties against whom specific
performance of a contract may be enforced. Such as person is therefore not a necessary
party and is not entitled to be joined in a suit for specific performance.

Further, in a Suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided
is the existence, validity and enforceability of the contract entered into between the
parties thereto, whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform their part of the
contract and whether he is entitled to a decree for specific performance of such
contract. The presence of a third party claiming title independently or adversely to the
vendor would therefore not be necessary for the Court to effectually and completely
adjudicate upon the questions arising in a suit for specific performance. Therefore such
a person is not even a proper party to the Suit.

This is in fact nothing but application of the aforementioned general principles in regard
to impleadment. Based on the aforesaid principle, a person, who was not a party to the
contract but wanted to be impleaded as a defendant on the ground that he had
acquired subsequent interest in the property by virtue of a separate decree obtained
from the Court, was held not entitled to be joined as a defendant. [Anil Kumar Singh
Vs. Shivnath Mishra, 1995 (3) SCC 147].

However, in another case, where the original defendant was not the only titleholder of
the subject property but was joint holder along with his sons, it was held that it cannot
be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is
filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that Suit and that, if C can
show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for
impleadment. [Sumtibai Vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.),
(2007) 10 SCC 82].

2. On the other hand, the usual question which arises is in regard to the status of a
purchaser of the Suit property from the vendor in a Suit for specific performance of a
prior agreement for sale by the vendor in favour of the plaintiff. In light of Section 19 (b)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a sale of immovable property in the teeth of an earlier
agreement to sell is immune from specific performance of an earlier contract for sale
only if the transferee has acquired the title for valuable consideration, in good faith and
without notice of the original contract. [Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak
Builders & Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397].

Further, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 makes it evident that a transfer
pendente lite is not illegal ipso jure but remains subservient to the pending litigation,
that is, the transfer is good except to the extent it might conflict with rights decreed.
[Nagubai Ammal Vs. B. Shama Rao, AIR 1956 SC 593, Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj,
(2010) 8 SCC 1, A. Nawab John Vs. V, N. Subramaniyam, (2012) 7 SCC 738, T. Ravi v. B.
Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342, Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Nanak Builders
& Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397].

Even where the sale deed is executed in breach of an injunction issued by a competent
Court, such breach would not render the transfer whether by way of an absolute sale or
otherwise ineffective and while the party committing the breach may doubtless incur
the liability to be punished for the breach committed by it but the sale by itself may
remain valid as between the parties to the transaction subject only to any directions
which the competent court may issue in the Suit against the vendor.

Therefore, a transferee pendent lite, who is a representative-in-interest of the party

from whom he has acquired the interest, would be a necessary party in a Suit for
specific performance inter alia since he would be directly affected by the outcome of the
Suit and bound by the final decree therein and it is likely that a transferor pendente lite
may not even defend the title properly as he has no interest in the same or may collude
with the plaintiff in which case the interest of the transferee pendente lite would be
ignored.

[Amit Kumar Shaw Vs. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403]. In any case, independent
of Order I Rule 10 (2), such person would be added even on account of the provisions of
Order XXII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.[Khemchand Shankar Choudhari
Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil, (1983) 1 SCC 18].

Furthermore, the proper form of decree in case specific performance is ultimately

granted to the plaintiff is to direct specific performance of the contract between the
vendor and the plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance
so as to pass on the title that resides in him to the plaintiff.[28]

Therefore, looking to all these factors, although there is some divergence of opinion on
the right of transferee pendent lite to be joined, it has been held that an application for
joining a transferee pendente to be joined, it has been held that an application for
joining a transferee pendente lite should be liberally considered and normally allowed.
 However, it has also been held in one case that the Court can order impleadment of a
purchaser whose conduct is above board, and who files the application for being joined
as party within reasonable time of his acquiring knowledge about the pending litigation
but if the applicant is guilty of contumacious conduct or is beneficiary of a clandestine
transaction or a transaction made by the owner of the Suit property in violation of the
restraint order passed by the court or the application is unduly delayed then the Court
would be fully justified in declining the prayer for impleadment. Some Judgments have
even gone to the extent of holding in a blanket manner that a transferee pendente is
not required to be joined as a party at all. In the humble opinion of this author, these
views do not appear to be correct.

3. Under Order XXII Rule 10, no detailed inquiry at the stage of granting leave is
contemplated and the Court has only to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its
discretion. The question about the existence and validity of the assignment, creation or
devolution can be considered at the final hearing of the proceedings.
Conclusion:

Thus, the provisions of law as contained in sub-section (2) Order XXII Rule 10 is not to
change the scope and character of the Suit by adding new parties or enable them to
litigate their own independent claims but simply to avoid litigation which might
otherwise become necessary. The balance has, therefore, to be struck by the Court in
each case by making a sound judicial approach. The law on impleadment is quite well
settled, and such applications should be decided based on the law so as to ensure that
unnecessary complications are avoided at a later stage.