The case titled Maryam Bee Versus Shuibham Jain and Others, bearing case number FAO(OS) (COMM) 199/2024, 2025:DHC: 7318 with the judgment pronounced on August 26, 2025, by the High Court of Delhi before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, concerns an appeal challenging the order dated May 7, 2024, related to the impleadment of a third party in a suit for specific performance.
The factual background involves Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filing a suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell concerning a property in Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, which the Appellant allegedly failed to execute despite partial payment; the Appellant contended a different total sale consideration, and Respondent No. 4, the Appellant's brother-in-law, sought to be impleaded as a co-owner.
The core dispute revolved around whether Respondent No. 4 could be added as a party in the suit for specific performance based on his claim of co-ownership, which the Appellant opposed, asserting that the suit should remain between the contracting parties only.
The core reasons for the appeal were that a third party or stranger to the contract cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance merely to avoid multiplicity of suits or to expand the suit's scope into a title and possession suit, while Respondent No. 4 argued that his impleadment was necessary due to his claimed ownership interest and the potential for conflicting rulings if excluded.
The court discussed the legal framework, referencing Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, emphasizing that only necessary or proper parties whose presence is essential for effectual adjudication should be impleaded, and relying on precedents like Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal, which held that a suit for specific performance is contract-centric and cannot be turned into a title suit by involving third parties claiming independent interest.
The decision was to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order that impleaded Respondent No. 4 as a party, and leave him free to pursue his claim by way of an independent suit before a competent court.
The crucial legal principle settled is that in suits for specific performance, only parties to the contract or their legal representatives should be impleaded, and third parties claiming independent title should not be added as it would enlarge the scope of the suit and convert it into a title suit, contrary to settled law.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
