SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM versus PRAKASAN & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 5 S.C.R. 2185 · Decided: 23-05-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 2185 : 2025 INSC 764
Sulthan Said Ibrahim 
v. 
Prakasan & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7108 of 2025)
23 May 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the High Court committed any error in rejecting 
the original petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the 
I.A. for deletion of name of the appellant from the array of parties 
was barred by res judicata; whether the appellant is entitled to the 
benefit of s.11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) 
Act, 1965; and whether the transfer of possession of the suit 
property was implicit in the decree of specific performance in the 
facts of the case.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. 1 r.10, Ord. XXII Rule 4 – 
Suit for specific performance – Impleadment as a legal heir – 
Deletion of name from array of parties – Respondent filed 
suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale and 
for vacant possession of the suit property against the original 
defendant, which was decreed in favour of the respondent – On 
the demise of the original defendant during the pendency of 
the execution proceedings, appellant, along with other legal 
heirs of the original defendant came to be impleaded in the 
execution proceedings before the trial court – Appellant filed 
an application seeking the deletion of his name from the array 
of parties on the ground that he was wrongly impleaded as 
a legal heir, that his deceased father was a tenant in the suit 
property prior to his demise; and that he is a tenant in the suit 
property by virtue of having inherited the tenancy from his 
deceased father – Trial court rejecting the application – High 
Court affirmed the order passed by the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Courts below committed no error in arriving at their respective 
decisions – Power to strike out or add a party to the proceedings 
u/Ord. I r.10 can be exercised by the court at any stage of the 
* Author
2186
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
proceeding – However, the same cannot be construed to mean 
that when a particular party has been impleaded as a legal heir 
u/Ord. XXII r.4 after due inquiry by the court and without any 
objections, the party can approach the court anytime later and 
seek his deletion from the array of parties by filing an application 
u/Ord. I r.10 – Trial court, while dismissing the application moved 
by the appellant u/Ord. I r.10, observed that the appellant had 
the opportunity of contesting his impleadment as the legal heir 
of the original defendant and the appellant was not only served 
with the notice of the impleadment application, but also entered 
appearance – However, the appellant, for reasons best known to 
him, chose to remain silent for more than four years and did not 
raise any objections as regards his status of not being a legal 
heir of the original defendant and over his objections as regards 
tenancy – If at all the appellant was aggrieved by his impleadment 
as a legal heir, the suitable course of action was to first object to 
his impleadment u/Ord. XXII r.4 – Even then if the trial court would 
have decided against the appellant, it would have been open to 
him to approach the High Court by filing a revision application 
against the order of impleadment – He was also a respondent in the 
application preferred by some of the legal heirs seeking rescission 
of the contract before the courts below – However, he chose not to 
raise any objection in either of these proceedings as well – Timing 
of the application preferred by the appellant also raises serious 
doubts as regards his bona fides – Thus, application for deletion 
from array of parties is merely one more attempt to further thwart 
and prolong what has already been an unduly protracted litigation 
for the original plaintiff – High Court rightly held the application of 
the appellant u/Ord. I r.10 to be barred by res judicata and thus, 
not maintainable on that ground – Principles of res judicata apply 
not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of 
the same proceeding as well – Neither any objection was raised by 
the appellant before the trial court nor any revision was preferred 
subsequently against the said order – Expression “at any stage of 
the proceedings” used in Ord. I r.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 diff

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.