Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court held that the principle of res judicata applies to impleadment proceedings under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. This means that if a party had the opportunity to raise objections regarding their impleadment or non-impleadment at the appropriate stage but failed to do so, they cannot raise the same issue later, as it would be barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.

The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the Appellant was impleaded in the suit as the legal heir of the defendant. The trial court's impleadment order attained finality as no challenge was made to the same. Later on, the Appellant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of his name as legal heir, citing Muslim personal law, arguing that since his father predeceased his mother, he cannot be made the legal heir of his grandmother.

The Trial Court and High Court dismissed the application seeking deletion of impleadment, prompting the Appellant to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala observed:

“In the present case, the order for impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir was made by the Trial Court after due inquiry under Order XXII, as also observed by the Trial Court in its order rejecting the application under Order I Rule 10. Evidently, neither any objection was raised by the appellant before the Trial Court nor any revision was preferred subsequently against the said order. Thus, it could be said that the issue as regards the impleadment of the appellant as a legal heir of the original defendant had attained finality between the parties and thus the subsequent application under Order I Rule 10 seeking to get his name deleted from the array of parties could be said to be barred by res judicata. Undoubtedly, the expression “at any stage of the proceedings” used in Order I Rule 10 allows the court to exercise its power at any stage, however the same cannot be construed to mean that the defendant can keep reagitating the same objection at different stages of the same proceeding, when the issue has been determined conclusively at a previous stage. Allowing the same would run contrary to the considerations of fair play and justice and would amount to keeping the parties in a state of limbo as regards the adjudication of the disputes.”

“Thus, had the appellant taken up the objection at the right stage of the proceedings, it would have been open to the court to look into the said objection under Order XXII Rule 5 and disallow his impleadment as a legal heir of the original defendant. However, having failed to act at the appropriate stage, it was not open to the appellant to subsequently approach the court with an application under Order I Rule 10.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VERSUS PRAKASAN & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 622

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. V. Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mr. C. Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukund P. Unny , AOR