Padma Group of Companies, the High Court of Bombay at Goa had to decide between the competition, as provided by the Competition Act 2002, and the Right to Information 2005. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. The court was hearing the case of Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. dated April 22, 2025, where the court stated that how far impleadment is permissible in Civil Actions under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
This judgment is deemed to be a landmark judgment. When giving the decision of the Court, Justice J.B. Pardiwala stressed that a party that is not precisely a “necessary party” but has a legal and significant interest in the subject matter of the action may nevertheless be impleaded as a “proper party.”
This is because the party has a considerable interest in the subject matter of the claim. In cases when there are many claims that overlap, this ruling strikes a compromise between the need to achieve comprehensive adjudication and the need to use procedural discretion.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Matrix of Facts and Background Information
The dispute centered on a lawsuit filed in Bhopal with the purpose of obtaining particular execution of a contract between the parties about a piece of agricultural property. Mr. Indramohan Pradhan, who is said to have completed two wills that were in disagreement with one another, was the original owner of the land.
Sameer Ghosh, the third defendant, was the beneficiary of the property in one of the wills, which was dated February 3, 2001. In another will, which was dated July 7, 2001, the land was left to his sons, who are defendants 1 and 2. Sameer Ghosh was awarded a probate certificate on May 13, 2005, which was granted in favor of him. The previous will was subject to the probate process.
Subsequently, Sameer Ghosh sold the property to M/s J N Real Estate, which is the defendant number eight, via a sale document that was registered in 2014 and dated December 30, 2009. During this time, the sons of the testator had already signed into separate sale agreements with other parties, one of whom was the original plaintiff. In 2007, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that they were entitled to the property, and they were demanding specific execution of a sale agreement that had been made in 2006.
Due to the fact that it was the registered owner of the property and possessed a valid sale document, M/s J N Real Estate argued that it had a strong interest in the case and so sought impleadment. In the beginning, the application was granted by the Trial Court; however, the High Court subsequently overturned this decision, expressing concerns over the authenticity of the transaction. This dispute was brought before the Supreme Court in an effort to find a resolution.
Important Concerns in the Legal System
The most important question that needed to be answered by the court was whether or not M/s J N Real Estate, which had purchased the property in question via a registered sale deed, had the legal right to be impleaded in a pending claim for specific performance involving third parties. In light of this, issues were raised about the interpretation of “necessary” and “proper” parties in accordance with Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, as well as the limitations of judicial power in accordance with Article 227 of the Constitution.
Another question that was connected to this one was whether or not the High Court had lawfully used its supervisory power by overturning the impleadment order that had been issued by the Trial Court.
Reasoning and interpretation provided by the court
In accordance with Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, the Supreme Court upheld the extensive discretionary powers that are accorded to courts. The Supreme Court made a distinction between “necessary” and “proper” parties by referring to previous cases such as Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre and Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal. A essential party is a party that cannot be absent from the process of passing an effective decree, while an appropriate party is a party whose participation contributes to the dispute being resolved in its entirety.
Despite the fact that M/s J N Real Estate was not a party to the first agreement for particular performance, the court acknowledged that the company had obtained title to the property via a registered transaction from the legatee who had been probated. As a result, it was considered a “proper party” due to its legal stake in the property. For the purpose of ensuring that all conflicting interests were resolved in a single action, the Trial Court had approved its impleadment, which was the correct decision.
Importantly, the Court reprimanded the High Court for digging into factual difficulties at the level of impleadment. These issues included the authenticity of the papers and the legitimacy of the transaction. It was decided by the court that such things should be decided during the trial rather than before the trial. The actions taken by the High Court in accordance with Article 227 were considered to be unreasonable.
The use of judicial decision making and fair adjudication
The courts should be guided by the principles of justice and efficiency as well as comprehensive adjudication as clarified by Supreme Court Justice Pardiwala. In cases when the exclusion of a party would lead to litigation that is fragmented or repetitious, the court need to make use of its discretionary authority to include that party in the proceedings. It was determined that the presence of M/s J N Real Estate was essential in order to prevent the issuance of contradictory rulings in concurrent litigation involving the same property.
In addition, the court observed that the plaintiff in the case had not raised any objections to the impleadment, and that the only defendant who had disputed it was Shailendra Pradhan. This provided more evidence in support of the decision that the involvement of the High Court was unnecessary.
The judgment of the Trial Court to implead M/s J N Real Estate was restored by the Supreme Court, which overturned the rulings of the High Court. Under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, the ruling serves as an important reaffirmation of the judicial authority that is granted. It guarantees that claims for specific performance and associated reliefs are not unreasonably confined by procedural formalities, particularly in situations when the property rights of many claimants collide with one another over the course of the litigation.
Not only does this ruling prevent legitimate buyers from being excluded from processes that directly impact their rights, but it also reduces the amount of arbitrary court involvement that occurs in topics pertaining to the litigation process. In future property and contract disputes involving impleadment concerns, the verdict will serve as an important reference that will be considered very important.
