The Supreme Court has ruled that a subsequent purchaser of disputed property cannot repeatedly seek impleadment in the same proceedings by relying on a different procedural provision after an earlier request has already been rejected on merits. At the same time, the Court held that where separate cross-objections create a fresh legal situation affecting the purchaser's rights, impleadment may still be permitted in those proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih on July 27, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a long-running property litigation involving Sanjiv Kumar and Shakuntla Devi along with other respondents. The original suit concerned ownership rights over portions of property belonging to the late Girdhari Lal.
The trial court had dismissed the suit after holding that the original plaintiff's adoption claim was not proved. However, the First Appellate Court partly reversed that finding, recognising Sanjiv Kumar as the legally adopted son of Bhagwan Dai and granting ownership over a specific portion of the property while restraining the defendants from transferring that particular property.
During the pendency of the litigation, two subsequent purchasers bought another portion of the property through a registered sale deed. Their earlier attempt to be impleaded in the second appeal was rejected by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2000. Years later, after the second appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration applications were filed, the purchasers again sought impleadment, restoration of the appeal, and condonation of delay. The High Court allowed those applications, leading Sanjiv Kumar to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of res judicata - which prevents the same issue from being litigated repeatedly after it has been finally decided - would apply in the present circumstances.
The Bench noted that judicial decisions remain binding between the parties even if they are based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, unless they are set aside through an appropriate legal challenge.
Explaining the principle, the Court observed:
“A judicial decision binds whether it is right or wrong. An error of law or fact... cannot be impeached otherwise than in appeal.”
The Court further distinguished between applications under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which deals with addition of necessary parties, and Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, which concerns transfer or devolution of interest during pending litigation.
According to the Bench, these provisions serve different legal purposes. However, where an earlier application under Order I Rule 10 has already examined the same purchaser's claim based on the same sale deed and rejected it on merits, filing another application under Order XXII Rule 10 for identical relief would ordinarily be barred.
The judgment states:
“The subsequent application under Order XXII Rule 10... is nothing but a re-agitation of a settled issue under a different statutory provision.”
The Court therefore disagreed with the High Court's reasoning that the earlier rejection could simply be ignored because it was based on an erroneous factual assumption.
Why Cross-Objections Were Treated Differently
The Bench, however, found that the position regarding the cross-objections was different.
It noted that the purchasers had never earlier sought impleadment in the cross-objections. After the main appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, the cross-objections alone were restored. This created a materially different situation because the purchasers' interests in the property under challenge could be affected while the original owners chose not to pursue the litigation.
The Court observed that this amounted to a fresh cause of action. It also noted that the possibility of collusion between the original parties could not be ruled out, making it appropriate to allow the purchasers to participate in the cross-objections to protect their interest.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeal in part, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order insofar as it restored the main appeal and permitted the subsequent purchasers to be impleaded in that appeal.
However, it upheld the High Court's decision allowing the purchasers to be impleaded as respondents in the cross-objections, holding that the earlier rejection did not bar their participation in those proceedings because the circumstances had materially changed.
The appeal was accordingly partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1052 of 2025)
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: July 27, 2026
