The Supreme Court of India has ruled that once legal heirs are impleaded after due enquiry under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), they cannot later seek removal of their names from the party array by citing Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. The apex court said that doing so would be barred by the doctrine of res judicata, thereby upholding the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the trial court.
Read also: Supreme Court rejects Karnataka Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni's plea seeking extension of time to
The judgment was pronounced in the case of Sultan Sayeed Ibrahim vs Publications & Ors, where the appellant was impleaded as legal heir of original defendant Jameela Beevi in a suit for specific performance filed in 1996. Though the appellant had opportunities to raise objections during impleadment, she chose not to take action for four years and instead participated in the proceedings.
Justice J.B. The bench headed by Justice Pardiwala said, "The position of law is well settled that the power to remove or add a party under Order I Rule 10 can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. However, it cannot be construed to mean that when a particular party has been impleaded under Order XXII Rule 4 after due enquiry and without any objection, he can subsequently seek removal through Order I Rule 10."
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Entertain Plea Seeking NEET UG 2025 Final Answer Key Before Results
The trial court had dismissed the appellant's removal application citing lack of constructive adjudication and bona fide, noting that the appellant had not raised objections during the impleadment process and instead was involved in delaying the execution of the decree. The high court affirmed this finding.
The appellant had argued that under Muslim Personal Law, he cannot be considered a legal heir as his father had died before his grandmother. However, the apex court held that such objections should have been raised during the initial impleadment stage. The Court also rejected the appellant’s claim of tenancy right over the suit property, as no credible documentary evidence was found.
“If the appellant had raised objection at the right stage of the proceedings, it would have been open for the Court to consider the said objection under Order XXII Rule 5… Having failed to take action at the appropriate stage, it was not open for the appellant to approach the Court subsequently with an application under Order I Rule 10,” the Court noted.
Read also: Supreme Court AoR Exam 2025 Scheduled for June 16–21: Check Venue, Entry Gates, and Sitting Plan
Further, the Court emphasised that once an order of the Court is passed and remains unchallenged, it becomes final and binding on the parties.
The principle of res judicata is essential in finalising judicial decisions… What is conclusive between the parties is the decision of the court and not the arguments," the bench said, citing several examples.
The court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and dismissed it with costs of ₹25,000 to be deposited with the Legal Services Authority. The Supreme Court directed the executing court to ensure that peaceful possession of the suit property is handed over to the original plaintiff within two months, with police assistance if necessary.
Case Title: SULTHAN SAID IBRAHIM VERSUS PRAKASAN & ORS.
