Introduction
The Patna High Court, in its judgment dated 22nd October 2024 in Civil
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction No. 1097 of 2017, delivered by Justice Arun
Kumar Jha, addressed a significant procedural dispute under Order I Rule
10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The case revolved
around whether purchasers of property during the pendency of litigation (i.e., pendente
lite) could be impleaded as parties to an ongoing suit. This judgment
reaffirms the discretionary power of courts to allow such impleadment,
balancing technical legal principles with equitable considerations.

Backdrop of the Case

The petitioners in this case were purchasers of suit land
involved in Title Suit No. 68 of 2001, pending before the Sub-Judge
IV, Rohtas. These purchasers sought to be impleaded as defendants under Order
I Rule 10(2) CPC. Their applications, dated 16.11.2016, were rejected by
the trial court primarily because:

1. The
   purchase had been made during the pendency of the suit.
2. The
   trial was already at the evidence stage, and impleading new parties could
   delay adjudication.
3. Allowing
   such applications might open the floodgates for numerous similar claims.

This rejection led the petitioners to invoke Article 227
of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to supervise
and correct jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts.

Arguments Raised by the Petitioners

The petitioners argued that:

• They
  were bonafide purchasers, unaware of the pending litigation.
• As
  purchasers, they had acquired a legitimate interest in the suit property.
• The
  trial court failed to appreciate that, even as pendente lite
  purchasers, they could still qualify as necessary or proper parties
  under Order I Rule 10(2).
• The
  rejection amounted to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the
  trial court.

Stance of the Respondents

Interestingly, the plaintiffs/respondents did not
object to the impleadment. This became a pivotal factor in the High Court’s
reasoning, as their willingness diluted the adversarial intensity usually
associated with such applications.

Legal Framework: Order I Rule 10(2) CPC

This provision grants the court the authority to:

“Add any person as plaintiff or defendant whose
presence before the court is necessary to enable it to adjudicate effectively
and completely all questions involved in the suit.”

Thus, the provision grants wide judicial discretion
to ensure complete justice.

Judicial Interpretation and Precedents

Justice Arun Kumar Jha built his reasoning on the strong
foundation of Supreme Court jurisprudence, especially four landmark
cases:

1. Mumbai International Airport v. Regency Convention
Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417

This judgment clarified that:

• A necessary
  party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed.
• A proper
  party is one whose presence is required to adjudicate the dispute
  completely.

It held that the court has the discretion to implead proper
parties, even against the wishes of the plaintiff, if their presence aids
adjudication.

2. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733

This case emphasized that a party is necessary if:

• No
  relief can be granted without them.
• Their
  presence is essential to settle the questions involved.

It stressed that impleadment should not be allowed merely
because a party has some interest unless it directly affects the outcome of the
suit.

3. Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC 82

Here, the Supreme Court allowed impleadment even where the
party had only a “semblance of interest” in the property. This marked
a more inclusive approach and expanded the scope of “proper party”
beyond rigid technicalities.

4. Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon (AIR 2005 SC 2209)

This judgment was critical in the present case. It held
that:

• A transferee
  pendente lite (a person who acquires interest in a property during
  litigation) is a representative-in-interest of the transferor.
• They
  may be impleaded to defend their interest, especially if the transferor
  might not adequately represent them due to loss of interest or potential
  collusion.

This doctrine harmonizes the doctrine of lis pendens
(which makes transfers during litigation subject to the outcome) with procedural
fairness.

High Court’s Observations and Analysis

Justice Jha observed that the trial court’s reasoning
suffered from jurisdictional error on multiple counts:

1. Failure
   to Recognize Discretionary Power: The trial court treated pendente
   lite purchasers as automatically disqualified, which is incorrect in
   law. Courts can permit such impleadment to avoid multiplicity of
   litigation and ensure comprehensive adjudication.
2. Ignoring
   Respondents’ No-Objection: Since the plaintiffs had no objection,
   denying impleadment lacked justification, especially when no prejudice was
   demonstrated.
3. Overemphasis
   on Stage of Trial: While late-stage impleadment might cause
   inconvenience, it is not a bar when the interests involved are
   substantial. Moreover, no alternative was provided to protect the
   petitioners’ interest.
4. Multiplicity
   of Proceedings: Denial of impleadment would force the petitioners to
   file fresh suits to protect their interests—something the legal system
   aims to avoid.
5. Misinterpretation
   of “Floodgate” Concern: Apprehensions about multiple similar petitions
   are speculative. The court’s role is to assess each case on its merits.

Final Verdict

The Patna High Court set aside the trial court’s order
dated 13.04.2017 and allowed both the impleadment applications dated
16.11.2016 filed by the petitioners under Order I Rule 10(2).

The Court firmly concluded that:

“The learned trial court committed error of jurisdiction
when it dismissed the petitions of the petitioners.”

Thus, the petitioners were permitted to be impleaded as defendants
in the ongoing suit.

Key Takeaways and Implications

1. Justice over Technicality

The judgment reiterates that substantive justice must
prevail over procedural rigidity, especially when parties have acquired a
real interest during litigation.

2. Court’s Discretion is Paramount

Order I Rule 10(2) CPC is not merely procedural; it is a tool
for justice. Courts must exercise discretion judiciously, especially when
omitting a party would result in fragmented litigation.

3. Protection of Pendente Lite Purchasers

Though such purchasers buy property at their own risk
(because of the doctrine of lis pendens), the law does not bar
them from being heard. This judgment protects their right to defend their
interest.

4. No Blanket Rule Against Late Impleadment

The stage of the trial is a factor, not a deciding
principle. Even during evidence recording, a party with a genuine interest
may be impleaded.

5. Respect for Plaintiff’s Will – But Not Absolute

Although the plaintiff is dominus litis, courts can
override their preference if justice demands so—especially when the party
seeking impleadment has substantial interest.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in this case is a
significant reaffirmation of the inclusive and equitable spirit of civil
procedural law. It emphasizes that litigation is not a private fiefdom
of the plaintiff but a public process that must serve justice for all
interested parties. The court’s approach balances the plaintiff’s autonomy,
the rights of subsequent purchasers, and the need for judicial
efficiency.

By allowing the petitioners to be impleaded, the Court not
only corrected a procedural wrong but also reinstated the confidence of
property purchasers that the judiciary remains accessible, fair, and
responsive—even when they enter the legal fray after the battle has already
begun.

Read the full judgement Below;

NDQjMTA5NyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-oPQh6Q3pXUs=