Introduction
In a detailed ruling on civil procedure, the Supreme Court has clarified a question that frequently arises in long-running property litigation: when a subsequent purchaser’s application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 CPC has already been rejected, can the same person later seek to be brought on record under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC on the strength of the same sale deed? The Court held that the answer depends on whether a fresh cause of action has arisen — and reached different conclusions for the main appeal and the connected cross-objections in the same case.
Background Facts
The dispute traces back to a suit filed by Bhagwan Dai, one of two widows of Girdhari Lal (the other being Respondent No. 1, Shakuntla Devi), seeking a declaration of exclusive ownership over part of a property and a half share in another building. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Bhagwan Dai died without legal heirs and that the appellant, Sanjiv Kumar, had failed to prove he was her adopted son. It instead upheld a will executed by Girdhari Lal in favour of Respondent No. 2, Varinder Kumar.
On appeal, the First Appellate Court partly reversed this finding — holding that Sanjiv Kumar was validly adopted by Bhagwan Dai, and recognising her ownership over a portion of the property that was in the possession of tenants, along with an injunction restraining Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating that specific portion.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (the “prior owners”) filed a second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1990, and the appellant filed cross-objections in the same proceeding. During the pendency of this litigation, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (“subsequent purchasers”) bought a different portion of the property — Property No. 4677/A — from the prior owners via a registered sale deed in 1990.
The subsequent purchasers first sought impleadment in the main appeal under Order I Rule 10 CPC in 1999. This was dismissed by the High Court in 2000 on the ground that the purchase violated the injunction order and was therefore hit by lis pendens — a finding the Supreme Court later found to be factually incorrect, since the injunction applied only to a different portion of the property than the one purchased.
In 2018, both the main appeal and the cross-objections were dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant successfully restored his cross-objections, but the prior owners made no effort to restore the main appeal despite requests from the subsequent purchasers. This prompted the subsequent purchasers to file fresh applications — for condonation of delay, restoration of the main appeal, and impleadment in both the main appeal and the cross-objections — alleging collusion between the appellant and the prior owners.
The High Court allowed all these applications by its order dated 13.11.2024, holding that its earlier 2000 order was based on a factual misconception and therefore would not operate as res judicata. The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Court identified three questions for consideration:
- Whether res judicata applies to an earlier decision based on an erroneous consideration of facts.
- Whether a subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the main appeal is barred by the earlier rejection under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
- Whether the application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC could be allowed in the cross-objections.
The Court’s Reasoning
On res judicata and erroneous findings
The Court reaffirmed the settled principle that a judicial decision binds the parties whether it is right or wrong, and that an error of fact or law cannot be corrected except in appeal, unless it goes to jurisdiction. Since the 2000 order had involved a conscious adjudication on merits — even if based on a mistaken understanding of the facts — it operated as a binding finding between the parties. The Court distinguished the High Court’s reliance on Allahabad Development Authority v. Nasiruzzaman, noting that case applied only where an order was passed in violation of a statutory prohibition or where the earlier court lacked jurisdiction — neither of which was true here.
Distinguishing Order I Rule 10 from Order XXII Rule 10
The judgment draws a structural distinction between the two provisions. Order I Rule 10 CPC concerns whether a party is necessary or proper to a suit from its inception. Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, read with Section 146 CPC, deals with a different situation altogether — where an interest in the subject matter devolves on a third party during the pendency of proceedings, such as a purchaser pendente lite. The Court held that dismissal under one provision does not automatically bar a subsequent application under the other, since they serve different purposes. However, where the earlier application was rejected after an actual examination of the transferee’s claim, the genuineness of the transfer, and the nature of the interest — and that finding was not further challenged — a later application invoking the same transfer and the same facts under the other provision would ordinarily be barred by res judicata, since it is merely a different procedural route to the same relief.
Application to the main appeal
On the facts, the Court found that the subsequent purchasers had already sought impleadment in the main appeal on the basis of the very same 1990 sale deed, and that this claim had been examined and rejected in 2000. Their later application under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC in the main appeal, resting on the identical transfer and the identical underlying question, was therefore a re-agitation of a settled issue and was barred by res judicata. Consequently, the subsequent purchasers could not be impleaded in the main appeal, and the main appeal itself could not be restored.
Application to the cross-objections
The outcome was different for the cross-objections. The earlier 2000 application under Order I Rule 10 CPC had been confined to the main appeal and had never covered the cross-objections. Additionally, after the 2018 dismissal for non-prosecution, the appellant’s cross-objections were restored while the prior owners made no effort to restore the main appeal — despite requests from the subsequent purchasers. The Court held this created a material change in circumstances and raised the real possibility of collusion between the appellant and the prior owners, giving rise to a fresh cause of action that had not been, and could not have been, raised at the time of the earlier application. Relying on Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, the Court held that a transferee pendente lite is entitled to be heard where the transferor may no longer properly defend the litigation. On this basis, the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the cross-objections was upheld.
Final Order
- The impugned High Court order was set aside in part: the restoration of the main appeal and the impleadment of the subsequent purchasers in the main appeal were reversed.
- The impleadment of the subsequent purchasers as respondents in the cross-objections was sustained and upheld.
- The appeal was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others Supreme Court of India | Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP (C) No. 1052 of 2025) | 2026 INSC 747 | Decided on 27.07.2026 Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Click HERE for full JUDGMENT
Lawcutor 