Pendente Lite Purchaser Can't Be Shut Out Where Relief Affects His Title:  Madras High Court Allows Impleadment in Injunction Suit to Prevent Prejudice and Multiplicity of Proceedings

“Though the plaintiff is dominus litis, when relief sought affects a third party's title, his presence is necessary for effective adjudication”, In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of the dominus litis principle in civil suits, the Madras High Court held that a purchaser of suit property during the pendency of proceedings is a necessary party where the relief claimed may directly affect his title or enjoyment. Justice R. Sakthivel set aside a trial court order that had dismissed an impleadment application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

While the Trial Court had dismissed the application solely on the ground that the petitioner was a pendente lite purchaser and hence not necessary for a suit seeking bare injunction, the High Court found that the second relief in the suit – seeking restraint on official authorities from making any FMB (Field Measurement Book) entries contrary to the plaintiff’s sale deed – directly impacted the revision petitioner’s rights.

“This Court is of the considered view that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, to decide the matter on merits and for effective adjudication and to render complete justice, the Revision Petitioner is a necessary party to the Suit,” Justice Sakthivel held.

“Purchaser before first hearing cannot be brushed aside – rights must be protected in adjudication”

The dispute arose out of a civil suit filed by the first respondent (plaintiff) in O.S. No.149 of 2021 before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, seeking two distinct prayers: (1) injunction against private defendants from interfering with his possession, and (2) injunction against revenue authorities from altering FMB records contrary to his April 2017 sale deed.

The petitioner, Selladurai, purchased part of the suit property on 26th August 2021 from the first defendant – notably, before the first hearing date fixed by the Trial Court on 6th September 2021. Claiming that his purchased land had been wrongly included in the suit schedule and that any order on the second prayer could severely prejudice his title, he sought to be impleaded in the suit as the seventh defendant under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC.

The Trial Court, however, rejected the application, branding him a pendente lite purchaser whose presence was unnecessary in a mere injunction suit.

Challenging this, Selladurai invoked the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the refusal to implead him was unjustified since the outcome of the suit could bind or prejudice his property rights.

“Impleadment necessary when suit’s second prayer targets official entries affecting purchaser’s rights”

In its analysis, the High Court accepted the contention that the nature of the second relief made the petitioner’s impleadment legally essential. Justice Sakthivel noted that while in suits for bare injunction the plaintiff retains control over whom to sue, that discretion cannot override the necessity to protect third-party interests that are directly affected by the outcome.

Quoting from the order, the Court observed:

“As far as the first prayer qua permanent injunction is concerned, the Revision Petitioner is not a necessary party. However, he is a necessary party qua the second prayer… If the Trial Court grants the second prayer, it will definitely cause prejudice to the Revision Petitioner’s rights over the Suit Property.”

The Court also emphasized that the sale in favour of the revision petitioner had occurred before the first hearing, thereby distinguishing him from a classic pendente lite purchaser. This distinction was vital because, unlike a subsequent purchaser who seeks to disturb settled proceedings, the petitioner had acquired title before any real judicial scrutiny began.

“The Suit was filed on August 11, 2021 and the Revision Petitioner purchased the Suit Property on August 26, 2021 – before the first hearing of the suit. His impleadment is necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid future litigation.”

“High Court sets aside Trial Court’s Order – Impleadment Allowed”

Allowing the revision, the High Court set aside the impugned Trial Court order in I.A. No.1109 of 2021 and allowed the impleadment application, permitting Selladurai to be added as the 7th defendant in the pending suit. The Court declined to award costs, considering the factual matrix.

“Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed… The petitioner shall be impleaded as 7th defendant. There shall be no order as to costs.”

When Injunction Prayers Touch Title or Records, Affected Parties Must Be Heard

This decision reinforces the judicial approach that procedural rules must aid in the complete and just resolution of disputes, especially when third-party rights over immovable property are at stake. The ruling reaffirms that the dominus litis doctrine, while fundamental, cannot override the principles of natural justice and complete adjudication.

By permitting impleadment in such cases, the High Court has prevented a future multiplicity of proceedings and safeguarded the constitutional promise of fairness in civil litigation.

Date of Decision: 09 December 2025