The Delhi High Court, in a judgment pronounced on November 17, 2025, dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s order that rejected an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The case, titled Vijender Tanwar vs. Girwar (Now Deceased) Through Agent/Legal Representative Anand Tyagi & Anr., involved a suit for permanent injunction concerning a property in Chhattarpur, Delhi, that had been pending since 1992.
Key Issue and Court’s Decision
The Petitioner, a stranger to the original 1992 suit, sought to be added as a party, claiming ownership of the subject property based on unregistered sale documents. The original suit was one for permanent injunction simpliciter, focusing narrowly on the question of the plaintiff’s peaceful possession against the defendant, not on title or ownership.
Justice Girish Kathpalia of the High Court upheld the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that the petitioner was not a necessary or even a proper party to the suit.
Rationale for Dismissal
The court’s decision was based on several key legal principles and factual findings:
- Scope of the Suit: The controversy in the original suit is limited to whether the plaintiff (Respondent No. 1’s predecessor) is in possession and is entitled to an injunction against the defendant (Respondent No. 2). Ownership is not a question to be settled in the suit.
- Preventing Expansion of Scope: Allowing the petitioner, who claims title, to be impleaded would widen the scope of the proceedings, converting what is an injunction suit into a complicated title suit. The court emphasized that collateral matters or controversies between a party and a third party cannot be adjudicated in this manner.
- Dominus Litis Principle: The plaintiff, being dominus litis (master of the suit), cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom no relief is sought. The plaintiff/Respondent No. 1 has no apprehension or claim against the petitioner.
- Inordinate Delay: The petitioner claimed to acquire interest in 2010 but filed the impleadment application only on August 16, 2018, when the suit had reached the stage of final arguments. The court agreed that such a delay creates suspicion that the petitioner was watching the proceedings and came up only to “throw spanner”.
- Claim through Predecessor: The petitioner claimed his rights through one P.D. Aggarwal, whose earlier impleadment application had already been dismissed. The court noted that while an earlier order had set aside the dismissal solely because the petitioner was not heard, the fundamental judicial decision that P.D. Aggarwal was not a necessary or proper party could not be ignored, as the petitioner claims title through him.
The High Court ultimately found no infirmity or perversity in the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition
VIJENDER TANWAR vs. GIRWAR (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH AGENT/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ANAND TYAGI & ANR., 17-11-2025