Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Verma vs Shivcharan Singh on 7 November, 2025
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28282
1 MP-4498-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 7 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4498 of 2025
DEVENDRA VERMA
Versus
SHIVCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anuraj Saxena - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha- Govt. Advocate for respondent No.5/
State.
Shri Satyendra Singh Rajput- Advocate for respondents No. 6 to 8.
None for remaining respondents despite notice.
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff assailing the order dated
02.07.2025 passed by the learned First District Judge, Ganj Basoda, District
Vidisha in Regular Civil Appeal No.03 of 2024, whereby the application
filed by respondents No. 6 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 was allowed, directing the petitioner to implead them as
parties to the appeal.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking declaration and
permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, pleading that he had
purchased the same through a registered sale deed and was in lawful
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28282
2 MP-4498-2025
possession thereof. Respondents No. 1 to 5 appeared and filed their written
statement. During pendency of the trial, both parties entered into a
compromise regarding possession and partition and an application under
Order 23 Rule 1 CPC was filed before the Trial Court.
3. The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 04.03.2020, allowed
the application and passed a decree on the basis of compromise, with a
direction that the decree shall be enforceable only after its registration.
Aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner preferred a Regular Civil
Appeal before the First Appellate Court to the limited extent of the aforesaid
direction concerning registration of decree.
4. During pendency of the appeal, respondents No. 6 to 8 filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment as parties,
asserting that they were necessary for effective adjudication of the appeal.
The petitioner opposed the application on the ground that they were not
parties to the original suit and, as the appeal was confined to a limited aspect,
their presence was neither necessary nor proper. However, without
considering the scope of the appeal and the settled principles under Order 1
Rule 10 CPC, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the application by
the impugned order dated 02.07.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned
order is contrary to law and facts of the case. The appeal was filed only
against the direction of the Trial Court regarding registration of the
compromise decree and did not involve any fresh adjudication of rights, title,
or possession. Since respondents No. 6 to 8 were neither parties to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28282
3 MP-4498-2025
original suit nor had any role in the compromise, their impleadment at the
appellate stage is impermissible. If they claim any independent right or
interest, they are free to avail the remedy of a separate civil suit in
accordance with law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No. 6 to 8 supported the
impugned order and submitted that they have an interest in the subject matter
of the suit, and therefore, their presence is necessary for complete and
effective adjudication of the dispute. Hence, no interference is called for.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It is undisputed that respondents No. 6 to 8 were not parties to the
original civil suit. The decree dated 04.03.2020 was passed on the basis of
compromise between the original plaintiff and defendants and the appeal was
preferred only to the extent of the direction relating to registration of the
decree. Introduction of new parties at the appellate stage, who were not
parties to the original proceedings and have no concern with the limited
issue raised in appeal, would amount to widening the scope of the appeal,
which is impermissible in law.
9. The learned First Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, impleadment can be permitted only when the presence
of such party is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the
questions involved in the suit or appeal. In the present case, as the
controversy before the appellate Court is confined merely to the
enforceability of a compromise decree upon registration, the presence of
respondents No. 6 to 8 is neither necessary nor proper. They are at liberty to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:28282
4 MP-4498-2025
seek appropriate relief before the competent forum, if so advised.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned First District Judge,
Ganj Basoda in Regular Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2024 suffers from illegality
and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application filed by respondents
No. 6 to 8 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC stands rejected.
11. Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. No order as to
costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
