LexM/S J N REAL ESTATE versus SHAILENDRA PRADHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2663 : 2025 INSC 611 M/s J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 5405-5406 of 2025) 22 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the appellant as one of the defendants in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell. Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.1, r.10 – ‘Proper party’ vis-à-vis ‘necessary party’ – Subsequent purchaser – Suit for specific performance – Appellant sought impleadment as defendant in the suit instituted by the original plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement to sell – Allowed by Trial Court – Order set aside by High Court – Interference with: Held: A party seeking impleadment may not be a necessary party but still, could be a proper party – There is a fine distinction between a necessary party and a proper party – A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court – Whereas a proper party is one who though not a necessary party is a person whose presence would enable the court to effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit – In the instant case, the presence of the appellant in the suit is required for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in the suit – Also, the original plaintiff did not oppose the impleadment of the appellant in his suit – High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the Trial Court impleading the appellant as one of the defendants as the genuineness of the transaction, if any, including the genuineness * Author 2664 [2025] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports of the documents is to be looked into during the trial – Impugned orders passed by the High Court set aside, order of Trial Court restored. [Paras 32-34] Case Law Cited Mumbai International Airport (P) Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre & Hotels (P) Ltd. [2010] 7 SCR 790 : (2010) 7 SCC 417; Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal [2005] 3 SCR 864 : (2005) 6 SCC 733; Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) [2007] 10 SCR 543 : (2007) 10 SCC 82 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Impleadment; Impleadment as defendants; Subsequent purchaser; Proper party; Necessary party; Suit for specific performance; Impleadment in suit for specific performance; Will; Testator; Agreement to sell; Cancellation of probate certificate; Probate certificate; Supervisory jurisdiction; Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 5405-5406 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2023 and 12.06.2023 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in RP No. 717 of 2023 of MP No. 5567 of 2018, respectively Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: C.U. Singh, Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Advs., S.Sukumar, Sreegesh M.K., Anand Sukumar, Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Mrs. Ruche Anand. Advs. for the Respondents: Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv., Vivek Singh, Ritik Dwivedi, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Ms. Rida Shafique, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Syed Faraz Alam, Atharva Gaur, Aayushman Aggarwal. [2025] 4 S.C.R. 2665 M/s J N Real Estate v. Shailendra Pradhan & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 12.12.2023 and 12.06.2023 respectively, in Review Petition No. 717 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No.5567/2018 respectively, by which the petition filed by the respondent No.1 herein (original defendant no. 4) came to be allowed and thereby the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Trial Court impleading the present appellant as one of the defendants in the suit came to be quashed and set aside. 3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant herein shall be referred to as the original defendant No.8, respondent No.1 herein shall be referred to as the original defendant No.4 and the respondent No.2 herein as the original plaintiff. 4. It is the case of the defendant no. 8 that one (Late) Mr. Indramohan Pradhan executed a will dated 03.02.2001 pertaining to the suit property in favour of one (Late) Mr. Sameer Ghosh (original d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.