The Madras High Court has clarified a critical procedural boundary in civil litigation: third parties cannot initiate applications to be impleaded as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This judgment reinforces the principle that only existing parties to a suit may seek joinder of additional parties, and that purchasers during litigation must seek continuation of the suit under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, not impleadment as plaintiffs.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a suit for permanent injunction filed by respondents 1 to 3 (original plaintiffs) against the petitioners and the 7th respondent, alleging interference with their possession of a suit property. While the suit was pending, respondents 1 to 3 sold the property to a third party. Respondents 4 and 5 subsequently purchased the property from that third party and claimed to have mutated the revenue records in their names and obtained an industrial license for the property.
Key Facts
- Original suit (O.S. No. 206/2019) filed for permanent injunction to restrain interference with possession
- Property sold by original plaintiffs (respondents 1 - 3) to a third party during pendency of suit
- Respondents 4 and 5 purchased the property from the third party via registered sale deed
- Revenue records mutated in favor of respondents 4 and 5
- Respondents 4 and 5 obtained industrial license for the property
- Respondents 1 to 5 jointly filed IA No. 732/2021 seeking impleadment as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC
- The application was sworn to by respondent 4, not by any original plaintiff
- The trial court allowed the impleadment on 23.10.2021, observing that necessary documents would be available only after impleadment
Procedural History
- Date of filing of original suit: O.S. No. 206/2019 (exact date not specified, but filed prior to 2021)
- Date of sale by original plaintiffs: Not specified, but occurred during pendency of suit
- Date of purchase by respondents 4 and 5: Not specified, but prior to filing of IA No. 732/2021
- 23.10.2021: Additional District Munsif Court allowed IA No. 732/2021 for impleadment of respondents 4 and 5 as plaintiffs
- 08.04.2026: Civil Revision Petition CRP No. 1625/2022 reserved for judgment
- 30.04.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Madras High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that respondents 4 and 5 are third parties with no standing to file an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. They contended that the application was fraudulently framed to appear as if filed by the original plaintiffs, when in fact it was sworn to by respondent 4, a stranger to the suit.
Respondents 2, 4, and 5: Argued that respondents 4 and 5 have stepped into the shoes of the original plaintiffs, having purchased the property pendente lite, mutated revenue records, and obtained licenses. They claimed that without impleadment, their rights would be defeated and that the suit must continue with them as plaintiffs.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought setting aside of the order dated 23.10.2021 allowing impleadment of respondents 4 and 5 as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC. No other relief was claimed.
The Legal Issue
Can a third party, who has purchased property pendente lite, file an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as a plaintiff in a suit initiated by the original owner?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned Senior Counsel relied on M. Selvaraj v. Jayadevi Krishnasamy and others (2022 (5) MLJ 258) to argue that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC permits only a party to the suit to apply for joinder of another party. A third party, even if claiming ownership through purchase, cannot initiate such an application. The affidavit was sworn by respondent 4, not by any original plaintiff, rendering the application procedurally defective. The trial court erred in allowing impleadment without examining the legal capacity of the applicant.
For the Respondent
The learned counsel for respondents 2, 4, and 5 contended that respondents 4 and 5 have acquired all rights of the original plaintiffs and are the real persons in interest. They argued that the principle of lis pendens does not invalidate the sale, only makes it subject to the suit’s outcome. Denying them party status would defeat their rights and render the suit meaningless. They claimed the application was jointly filed by plaintiffs and respondents 4 and 5, thus justifying impleadment.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous textual analysis of Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, which states: "The Court may, at any stage of the suit, on the application of any party, order any person to be joined as a plaintiff or defendant..." The Court emphasized that the phrase "on the application of any party" restricts the right to initiate such an application to those already parties to the suit.
"A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application would indicate that the plaintiffs are shown as the petitioners 1 to 3 and two individuals, who are third parties to the suit as petitioners 4 and 5, claiming themselves to be the purchasers of the property pendente lite and the affidavit had been sworn to by the 4th respondent."
The Court held that the application was improperly framed to conceal the fact that the applicant was not a party. The proper remedy for a pendente lite purchaser is not impleadment under Order I Rule 10(2), but continuation of the suit under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which specifically addresses assignment or devolution of interest during litigation.
"In the present case, the parties could only be entitled to take out an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC and not an application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, as it is necessary for the subsequent purchaser to seek permission of the Court to continue the proceedings that was initiated."
The Court further noted that the original plaintiffs, having sold the property, no longer possessed the cause of action for injunction. Their continued participation as plaintiffs was legally untenable. The trial court’s reasoning - that documents would be available only after impleadment - was deemed insufficient and legally irrelevant.
The Verdict
The Civil Revision Petition was allowed. The order dated 23.10.2021 in IA No. 732/2021, allowing impleadment of respondents 4 and 5 as plaintiffs under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC, was set aside. The trial court’s order was held to be legally unsustainable. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Third Parties Cannot Initiate Impleadment as Plaintiffs
- Practitioners must ensure that applications under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC are filed only by existing parties to the suit
- Any attempt by a third party to file such an application, even if supported by the original plaintiff, is procedurally invalid
- The affidavit must be sworn by a party to the suit, not by a proposed party
Pendente Lite Purchasers Must Use Order XXII Rule 10 CPC
- Subsequent purchasers must file an application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC seeking leave to continue the suit
- The application must be supported by proof of transfer (registered deed, mutation, possession)
- The court may permit continuation only if the interest is substantial and the suit remains viable
- Failure to follow this procedure renders any impleadment order liable to be set aside
Trial Courts Must Scrutinize Procedural Validity
- Courts must not allow impleadment on the basis of convenience or document availability
- The legal basis for joinder must be independently verified
- Orders granting impleadment without addressing the applicant’s standing are appealable under Article 227
