The Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (Striking out or adding parties at any stage of a proceeding) necessary and Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908

Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (necessary and Proper Party ) order 1 rule 10 of the CPC, 1908 Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre, Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, and Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co., focusing on impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10(2), CPC in specific performance suits.

---

Comparative Case Analysis: Impleadment of Parties in Specific Performance Suits

Case Name	Key Issue	Held	Position on Impleadment
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417	Can a third party with prospective interest in the suit property be impleaded?	❌ No impleadment	A party with only expectation of acquiring interest (not an existing right) is not a proper or necessary party. The plaintiff's choice of whom to sue is respected unless the twin test is met.
Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733	Can a person claiming adverse title to both plaintiff and defendant be impleaded?	❌ No impleadment	Only parties to the contract, their legal representatives, or transferees pendente lite are necessary parties. A person claiming independent or adverse title is not to be impleaded.
Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC 82	Can a third party with semblance of title be impleaded in specific performance suits?	✅ Yes (conditionally)	If a third party can show some semblance of title or interest, they may be a proper party. But not every outsider can claim impleadment. The court exercises discretion.

---

Key Legal Doctrine (Reiterated Across Cases)

Order I Rule 10(2), CPC

The Court may add any person who is a necessary or proper party:

• Necessary party: One without whom no effective decree can be passed.

• Proper party: One whose presence is helpful for full and complete adjudication, though no relief is claimed against them.

---

Practical Differences in Reasoning

Kasturi:

• Reinforces the "contractual circle" — Only the contracting parties or their legal successors can be impleaded.

• Adding outsiders with adverse claims would complicate the suit.

Sumtibai:

• Introduces flexibility — if there is a semblance of title, court may allow impleadment.

• Aims to avoid multiplicity of suits, if third-party interest is closely linked to the subject matter.

Mumbai Airport:

• Draws the line: Prospective or speculative interests ≠ legal interest.

• Even public importance or expected leasehold rights do not justify impleadment.

• Clarifies Sumtibai does not override Kasturi, but applies in distinct factual situations.

---

In Summary:

Principle	Kasturi	Sumtibai	Mumbai Airport
Party to contract required?	✅	⚠️ Optional, depends on facts	✅
Adverse claimant allowed?	❌	⚠️ Rarely, if linked to claim	❌
Speculative interest sufficient?	❌	❌	❌
Semblance of title enough?	❌	✅	❌

---

Conclusion

• Use Kasturi to argue for strict exclusion of outsiders in specific performance suits.

• Use Sumtibai when there’s a genuine stake, even if not a direct party.

• Use Mumbai Airport to reject parties with mere commercial or future expectations, reaffirming plaintiff autonomy and judicial discretion.