The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified a critical procedural question: whether a defendant can implead a third party as a defendant in a counter-claim when that party is not already part of the suit. The Court held that Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not permit a counter-claim against strangers to the suit, reinforcing the principle that the plaintiff is the dominus litis (master of the suit). The judgment underscores the limits of impleadment and the sanctity of the plaintiff’s control over the parties to the litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Smt. Pinki Kushwah and others, filed a civil suit before the Fifth Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gwalior, seeking:
- A declaration that the sale deed dated 22.12.2023, executed by Hemant Sharma in favour of respondent No. 1 (Agyat Gupta), is null and void.
- A decree of permanent injunction against respondent No. 1 to restrain him from interfering with the petitioners’ possession of the suit land.
The dispute arose from two conflicting sale deeds:
- 10.02.2023: Hemant Sharma executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners for the suit land.
- 22.12.2023: Hemant Sharma executed another sale deed for the same land in favour of respondent No. 1.
The Parties' Positions
Respondent No. 1 (Defendant):
- Filed a written statement disputing the petitioners’ claim.
- Filed a counter-claim seeking:
- A declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2023 (in favour of the petitioners) is null and void.
- A decree of permanent injunction against the petitioners and Hemant Sharma.
- Subsequently, filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Hemant Sharma as a defendant in the suit.
Petitioners (Plaintiffs):
- Opposed the impleadment application, arguing that Hemant Sharma was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others to contend that the plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead a party against their wishes unless the court directs it suo motu for effective adjudication.
Procedural History
- 10.02.2023: Sale deed executed by Hemant Sharma in favour of the petitioners.
- 22.12.2023: Sale deed executed by Hemant Sharma in favour of respondent No. 1 for the same land.
- Date not specified: Petitioners filed the civil suit (RCSA No. 470 of 2025) seeking declaration and injunction.
- Date not specified: Respondent No. 1 filed a written statement and counter-claim.
- Date not specified: Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of Hemant Sharma.
- 08.10.2025: The Trial Court allowed the impleadment application, directing Hemant Sharma’s inclusion as a defendant.
- Date not specified: Petitioners filed the present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Trial Court’s order.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the Trial Court’s order dated 08.10.2025, which allowed the impleadment of Hemant Sharma.
- Rejection of respondent No. 1’s application under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the High Court was:
Whether a defendant can file a counter-claim under Order I Rule 10 CPC against a person who is not already a party to the suit, and whether the plaintiff, as dominus litis, can be compelled to implead such a party?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sudhamayee Pattnaik and Others v. Bibhu Prasad Sahoo and Others to argue that the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to implead a party against their wishes.
- Hemant Sharma was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit, as the relief sought (setting aside the sale deeds) could be adjudicated without his presence.
- Allowing the impleadment would undermine the plaintiff’s control over the suit and permit the defendant to introduce collateral claims against third parties.
For the Respondent No. 1
- Respondent No. 1 argued that if the Trial Court rejected the relief sought in the counter-claim (i.e., declaring the sale deed dated 10.02.2023 null and void), they would be entitled to seek a refund of the sale consideration from Hemant Sharma.
- For this purpose, Hemant Sharma’s impleadment was necessary to ensure just and proper adjudication of the issues.
- The sale deed dated 10.02.2023 was merely symbolic, as Hemant Sharma had purchased the land from the original owner, Balkishan, only three days prior (on 07.02.2023).
- The Trial Court had rightly appreciated the facts and allowed the impleadment application.
The Court's Analysis
The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing impleadment and counter-claims under the CPC:
-
Counter-Claim Against Strangers: The Court relied on a coordinate bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mazid Beg (Dead) through Arkey Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Subhashini Pandey and Others (Civil Revision No. 400 of 2021), which held that a counter-claim cannot be filed against persons who are not parties to the suit. The Court cited the following key observations from the judgment:
"Rule 6A of CPC does not say as to who shall be parties to the counter-claim, however it can be filed only against the plaintiff(s) and against no other person. Order VII Rule 1 CPC prescribes about particulars to be contained in plaint but Order VIII does not prescribe containing of such particulars in the written statement or counter-claim also. Meaning thereby the particulars about plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) remain the same in both cases as shown in the plaint and in my considered opinion, parties to the suit are treated the parties to the counter-claim also, therefore, there arises no question of substitution of LRs/addition of new party in the counter-claim also.
In the case of Gastech Process Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Saipem, 2009 (159) DLT 756 and Hari Singh Kapur v. Ajit Kumar Kapur and Ors., 2008(4) Civil Court Cases 812 (P&H), Delhi and Punjab & Haryana High Courts have held that counter-claim cannot be filed against the persons who are not parties to the suit i.e. against the stranger to the suit. It is also well settled that without written statement, there cannot be a counter-claim.
The Court concluded that respondent No. 1 could not maintain a counter-claim against Hemant Sharma, who was a stranger to the suit.
-
Plaintiff as Dominus Litis: The Court reiterated the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sudhamayee Pattnaik, which held:
"As per the settled position of law, the plaintiffs are the dominus litis. Unless the Court suo motu directs joining of any other person not a party to the suit for an effective decree and/or for proper adjudication as per Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, nobody can be permitted to be impleaded as defendant against the wish of the plaintiffs. Not impleading any other person as defendant against the wish of the plaintiffs shall be at the risk of the plaintiffs.
The Court emphasized that the plaintiff’s control over the parties to the suit is sacrosanct and cannot be overridden by the defendant’s attempt to implead a third party.
-
Necessity of Hemant Sharma’s Presence: The Court observed that the relief sought in the suit and counter-claim was limited to setting aside the two sale deeds (dated 10.02.2023 and 22.12.2023). This relief could be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings and evidence led by the parties, and Hemant Sharma’s presence was not required for a just and proper adjudication. The Trial Court had erred in allowing the impleadment merely on the ground that Hemant Sharma’s presence would assist the Court.
The Verdict
The High Court allowed the miscellaneous petition and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 08.10.2025. The key outcomes were:
- The application filed by respondent No. 1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC was rejected.
- The impleadment of Hemant Sharma as a defendant was disallowed.
- The counter-claim against Hemant Sharma was held non-maintainable.
- The Court did not award costs in this matter.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Counter-Claims Are Limited to Parties to the Suit
- Defendants cannot introduce new parties into the litigation through counter-claims. The judgment reaffirms that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC can only be filed against the plaintiff(s) and not against strangers.
- Practitioners must ensure that counter-claims are strictly confined to the existing parties to avoid jurisdictional challenges.
Plaintiff’s Control Over Parties Is Absolute
- The plaintiff’s status as dominus litis is a fundamental principle of civil procedure. Courts cannot compel plaintiffs to implead parties against their wishes unless the court directs it suo motu for effective adjudication.
- Defendants seeking to implead third parties must file separate suits or seek the court’s intervention under Order I Rule 10 CPC, rather than attempting to do so through a counter-claim.
Trial Courts Must Scrutinize Impleadment Applications
-
Trial Courts should carefully examine applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC to ensure that impleadment is necessary for effective adjudication and not merely a collateral attempt to introduce new claims.
-
The judgment serves as a cautionary precedent for Trial Courts to avoid allowing impleadment applications that dilute the plaintiff’s control over the suit or introduce irrelevant parties.
-
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners:
- Always oppose impleadment applications if the third party is not necessary for adjudicating the relief sought.
- Cite Sudhamayee Pattnaik to argue against forced impleadment.
- Ensure counter-claims are filed only against existing parties to avoid dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
- File separate suits for claims against third parties not already part of the litigation.
