Unchallenged Impleadment is Final – Subsequent Deletion Barred by Res Judicata
(Analysis of Supreme Court decision in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan & Ors., 2025 INSC 764)

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan addresses a recurring post-decree tactic: defendants or their heirs seeking to re-open impleadment orders in execution proceedings to stall delivery of the fruits of a decree. The Court, speaking through Pardiwala J., holds that where a party is substituted as a legal representative under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC and does not object at that stage, the order attains finality; a later application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to delete that party is barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The ruling also re-affirms that (i) tenancy pleas cannot be raised belatedly to defeat a confirmed specific-performance decree, and (ii) delivery of possession is implicit when the vendor held exclusive possession at the time of the decree.

2. Background of the Case

• 1996: Respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) filed O.S. 617/1996 for specific performance against his vendor, late Jameela Beevi, concerning a 1-cent commercial property in Palakkad, Kerala.
• 1998–2003: Suit decreed ex parte, reopened, tried afresh and decreed again. All appellate challenges up to the Supreme Court failed by 2008, making the specific-performance decree final.
• 2008: Jameela Beevi died; her heirs, including the present appellant (grand-son), were impleaded under Order XXII Rule 4 without objection.
• 2009–2012: Heirs filed successive interlocutory applications to rescind the contract; all were dismissed. Appellant participated without demur.
• 2012: Appellant moved I.A. 2348/2012 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to delete his name, claiming (a) he is not a legal heir under Mohammedan law, and (b) he is a protected tenant.
• 2013: Trial Court dismissed the I.A.; Kerala High Court affirmed in 2021; Supreme Court now confirms those findings.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal with costs, holding:

1. Appellant’s application for deletion was barred by res judicata since the earlier order of impleadment under Order XXII Rule 4, passed after notice and inquiry, had attained finality and was not challenged in appeal/revision.
2. The timing of the application revealed a strategy to delay execution; the conduct was an abuse of process.
3. The appellant’s belated plea of tenancy lacked evidence and was, therefore, rightly rejected; consequently, Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1965 offered no shield.
4. Where the vendor had exclusive possession, transfer of possession is implicit in a decree for specific performance; hence, execution court can deliver possession even if it was not expressly granted in the operative part.
5. Execution court directed to hand over vacant possession within two months using police aid, and appellant to pay ₹25,000 costs to Legal Services Authority.

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited

• Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (1992) 2 SCC 524 – Scope of Order I Rule 10; cited to show wide discretion but also its limits when an issue has already been conclusively decided.
• Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 – Principles of res judicata apply to different stages of the same proceedings; relied upon to prevent re-litigation of impleadment.
• Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (1960) 3 SCR 590 – Finality of decisions within the same litigation emphasised.
• Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (2017) 9 SCC 700 – Distinguished; there the defendant had died before institution, making Order XXII inapplicable. Here, death occurred during proceedings, bringing Order XXII into full play.
• BIRMA DEVI v. SUBHASH 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3676 – Cited by appellant; Court clarified why it did not apply because vendor had exclusive possession in present case.
• Classics on tenancy protection: B. Bal Reddy v. Teegala Narayana Reddy (2016) 15 SCC 102 – protected tenancy survives until proper termination. Distinguished on facts: no proof of subsisting tenancy.

4.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Res judicata within the same suit – Order XXII Rule 4 inquiry is a decision on status as legal representative. Once the appellant was impleaded and did not challenge, Section 11 CPC precludes later challenge. Key quote: “principles of res judicata apply not only to two different proceedings but also to different stages of the same proceeding.”
2. Scope of Order I Rule 10 vs. Order XXII – Sub-rule (2) of Order I Rule 10 permits deletion/ addition at any stage unless the matter has already been conclusively adjudicated. Allowing a fresh I.A. would defeat the finality embedded in Order XXII Rule 5 determinations and encourage endless obstruction.
3. Tenancy plea rejected – Appellant produced no contemporaneous evidence of tenancy post-1992. The silence during earlier litigation and witness status in the 1996 agreement undermined credibility. The 2011 municipal licence was viewed as self-serving.
4. Possession implicit in specific-performance decrees – Following Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal (1982) and Rohit Kochhar v. Vipul Infrastructure 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3584, the Court reiterated that where the vendor was in exclusive possession, the decree’s mandate to execute sale deed carries with it the obligation to deliver possession.
5. Abuse of process & proportional response – Repeated interlocutory applications after decree finality constitute abuse of process; hence, costs and strict direction for police-backed delivery were warranted.

4.3 Impact of the Judgment

• Execution Proceedings Rationalised – Litigants cannot revive status/party issues once impleadment has attained finality; execution courts can summarily dismiss such applications, expediting delivery of decrees.
• Discourages Dilatory Tactics – The Court’s willingness to impose costs, brand applications as abuse, and fix concrete timelines sets a deterrent precedent.
• Clarifies Interaction of Order I Rule 10 with Order XXII – Practitioners must choose the correct procedural provision; a party sleeping on its rights at the substitution stage cannot invoke the broader discretion of Order I Rule 10 later.
• Specific-Performance Decrees Strengthened – Re-affirms that possession follows title in such decrees, reducing the scope for separate suits or fresh execution petitions.
• Limited Scope for Protected Tenancy Defence – Parties claiming tenancy must raise it at the earliest with cogent evidence; otherwise, courts will view it sceptically.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Order XXII Rule 4 CPC – When a defendant dies during a suit, their legal representatives (LRs) must be brought on record. The court decides who qualifies as an LR. Once substituted, that finding is final unless appealed.
• Order I Rule 10 CPC – A flexible tool allowing courts to add/delete parties to ensure complete adjudication. However, it is not a second chance to dispute an LR determination already settled under Order XXII.
• Res judicata – Literally “a thing adjudged.” Prevents the same parties from re-litigating an issue that a competent court has conclusively decided, even within the same suit at later stages.
• Protected Tenancy (Kerala) – Section 11 of the Kerala Rent Control Act bars eviction of a tenant except via specified grounds before the Rent Control Court. But one must first prove the existence of tenancy.
• Implicit Possession in Specific Performance – If the seller physically holds the property, directing execution of the sale deed implicitly obliges the seller/LRs to hand over the keys. A separate prayer for possession is unnecessary in such situations.

6. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan fortifies the doctrine of finality within civil procedure. By holding that an unchallenged substitution order under Order XXII becomes impervious to later attacks under Order I Rule 10, the Court has shut an all-too-common escape hatch for judgment-debtors. The decision harmonises the twin objectives of civil justice—accuracy and finality—while sending a strong message against procedural abuse. Moreover, the Court clarifies that long-finalised specific-performance decrees encompass delivery of possession where appropriate, and last-minute tenancy claims will not be entertained without compelling proof. Practitioners must, therefore, contest substitution orders promptly, marshal tenancy evidence early, and recognise that higher-court confirmation of a decree is, in substance, the end of the road.