Akshoy Ghosal 04 June 2025

Impleading third parties by third party

Two impleadment petitions were filed by one person (let us call him A) who is not a party to the suit under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. In the first petition, he prayed the Court to implead him as a Plaintiff. In the second petition, he prayed the Court to implead one more person (let us call him B) as a defendant. He says, and it is true, that both of them have a share in the property. However, the other co-owners (plaintiffs) did not include these two people at the time of filing the civil suit for some reason (they were not talking to each other).

The person A stated in the two petitions that they are necessary and proper parties because they have a share in the property.

It is a suit for injunction against a few other people to not to disturb their peaceful possession. Since it is a suit for injunction, both of them are not necessary and proper parties. Is it right?

Now, the query is whether somebody (A), who is not a party to the suit, implead somebody else (B) as a defendant.

The first person A is trying to implead himself as a Plaintiff. We do not have any issues about that.

The second person B is not interested in joining the suit. He does not want to be a Plaintiff or a Defendant. He wants to oppose the second petition by saying that somebody, who is not a party to the suit, cannot implead somebody else. He does not owe any reliefs to A or the existing plaintiffs or anybody else. He is not a necessary and proper party even though he has a share in the property.

Both of them (A and B) have a share in the property. There are no reliefs to be claimed against them.

Can we refer to these two people as "third parties"? Can we say that a third party cannot implead another third party, when there are no reliefs to be claimed from him?

I humbly request the advocates in this esteemed forum to share their valuable opinion about the above issue.

Reply Follow

5 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 05 June 2025

A third party who has filed an impleadment petition can generally file another impleadment petition simultaneously to implead another third party to the suit.

The court will consider the necessity of impleading the new party and whether their presence is essential for the proper adjudication of the case.

Impleadment allows a third party to be added to a legal case as a party, either as a plaintiff or defendant.

This can be done when their presence is necessary for the court to effectively resolve the matter.

The court has discretion to allow impleadment applications, considering factors like ensuring effective adjudication and preventing multiplicity of proceedings

A third party who has already been impleaded can file a separate impleadment application to add another party to the suit.

This is because the need to add the second third party may not have been apparent when the first impleadment application was filed.

1 Like

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 05 June 2025

In law, "dominus litis" translates to "master of the suit" or "owner of the suit." It refers tothe person who initiates a legal action and has control over it, particularly the plaintiff.

This concept gives the plaintiff the right to decide the parties involved, the relief sought, and the court or forum where the case will be heard qua necessity of the party applied to be included as "plaintiff" (which is generally disallowed) or defendant (which depends upon facts and circumstances explained by applicant).

An impleadment application, filed under the order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 is a request to the court to add a new party to an existing lawsuit. This is typically done when a person's presence is deemed necessary or proper for the court to adjudicate and resolve the issues in the case effectively. The court has discretion to grant such an application, but usually will only do so if the new party is a necessary or proper party.

In response to your query qua, "...somebody (A), who is not a party to the suit, implead somebody else (B) as a defendan..." has no locus standi to the suit and such an application is not maintainable.