Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court

No One Can Be Compelled to Be Made a Defendant Unless Legally Necessary - In a decisive ruling on January 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of a private company seeking to be impleaded as a defendant, holding that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to a suit filed for recovery of service charges.

The apex court upheld the Bombay High Court’s reversal of a trial court order that had earlier allowed the impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court found that the appellant had failed to establish legal succession to the original defendant (a partnership firm), and ruled that the plaintiffs, being dominus litis, could not be forced to implead a party against whom no relief was claimed.

Supreme Court: “Appellant cannot be accepted to be the successor… the claim has no legs to stand”

Justice Pankaj Mithal, delivering the judgment for the bench also comprising Justice Prasanna B. Varale, held that:

“The appellant has nowhere established its independent right to be impleaded to defend the suit except for claiming to be the successor of respondent No.3 which, in our opinion, has no legs to stand.”

Critically, the Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on a certificate of incorporation dated 22.02.1988, purportedly showing that it had succeeded the partnership firm M/s Kishore Engineering Company (respondent no.3). The Court noted that the firm had only four partners, and under Part IX of the Companies Act, 1956, a firm must have at least seven partners to convert into a company.

“There is no authentic proof on record that the above partnership firm was ever converted into a company... Respondent No.3 continues to exist as a partnership firm even though appellant may have been incorporated as a new company,” the bench held.

Trial Court’s Order Allowing Impleadment Was Rightly Reversed – Supreme Court Declines to Interfere Under Article 136

The case concerned Suit No. 6117 of 2007, filed by Tarun Keshrichand Shah and Priyalata Keshrichand Shah, seeking recovery of service charges for use of furniture and fixtures from M/s Kishore Engineering Company (respondent no.3), a firm allegedly sublet into commercial premises situated in Churchgate House, Mumbai.

After the defendant-firm failed to appear, the trial court proceeded ex parte in 2014. In 2018, NAK Engineering Pvt. Ltd., claiming to be the successor to the firm, sought impleadment. The trial court allowed the motion. However, the High Court set aside that order in 2022 under Article 227, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The apex court upheld the High Court’s approach and refused to interfere, holding:

“We do not consider [the High Court’s judgment] to be illegal so as to set it aside and restore the order of the Trial Court.”

Plaintiff Is Dominus Litis – No One Can Be Compelled to Be Made a Defendant Unless Legally Necessary

In a strong affirmation of settled procedural principles, the Supreme Court emphasized that a plaintiff’s autonomy in choosing the parties to sue must be respected.

Citing Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, and Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, (2005) 6 SCC 733, the Court reiterated:

“A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision.”

Applying this to the present case, the Court found:

“The plaintiffs are not claiming any relief against the appellant. There is no iota of material to indicate that the relief, as claimed in the suit against respondent No.3, if granted, would be implemented against the appellant.”

Thus, the appellant was found to be neither a necessary nor a proper party, and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC did not warrant its addition. The Court also invoked Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das, (2018) 2 SCC 352, affirming that:

“No person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit.”

Delay in Impleadment Fatal – Appellant Knew of Suit Since 2008, Yet Moved Application in 2018

Another major reason for rejection was the inordinate delay. The Court found that the summons acknowledgment from 2008 bore the seal and signature of the appellant, proving that it had knowledge of the suit since then.

“The impleadment application was filed almost after nine years of the knowledge of the pendency of the suit. Thus, the impleadment has been rightly refused to the appellant,” the Court held.

The Court also found no merit in the argument that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227. It held that, even if the order was interlocutory, the High Court’s intervention to correct an error was not improper.

No Relief, No Role – Court Clarifies Decree Will Not Be Enforced Against Appellant

Importantly, while dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court safeguarded the appellant’s position by clarifying that:

“The decree passed in the suit would not be used against the appellant and would not be implemented against it.”

This clear directive ensures that any decree obtained in the suit for recovery of service charges against respondent no.3 would not bind or affect the appellant, thereby preserving its legal rights, if any.

Mere Incorporation Doesn’t Make You a Successor – Impleadment Requires Legally Enforceable Right

This decision is a robust reiteration of procedural discipline under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, emphasizing that a party must demonstrate legal succession, interest, or liability to claim impleadment in an ongoing suit.

The Supreme Court left no ambiguity:

“The certificate of incorporation in no way conclusively proves that it has come into existence as a successor of respondent No.3.”

Without a clear right or liability, and without being a party against whom relief is sought, a company—even if occupying the disputed premises—cannot force itself into a suit for recovery of dues.

Date of Decision: 05 January, 2026