Supreme Court Holds That a Third Party Claiming Successorship Is Neither a Necessary nor Proper Party Without Proof of Legal Succession

Case Name: NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Tarun Keshrichand Shah & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 8
Date of Judgment/Order: 05 January 2026
Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that a third party claiming to be a successor of a defendant cannot be impleaded in a civil suit unless it establishes a clear legal right or interest in the subject matter of the dispute and satisfies the twin tests of being a necessary or proper party, and that a plaintiff, as dominus litis, cannot be compelled to implead such a party against its wishes.

Summary: The appeals arose from the rejection of an impleadment application filed by the appellant, who claimed to be the successor of a sub-tenant against whom a suit for recovery of service charges was pending. Although the Trial Court allowed impleadment, the High Court set aside that order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the factual background, including the nature of the suit, the alleged successorship under the Companies Act, the continued existence of the original defendant, and the long delay in seeking impleadment. Relying on settled jurisprudence on Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court reiterated the distinction between necessary and proper parties and emphasized that mere occupation of premises or a bald claim of successorship, unsupported by legal proof, does not confer a right to be impleaded.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, the High Court’s order rejecting impleadment was upheld, and the Supreme Court clarified that any decree passed in the suit would not bind or be executed against the appellant, with all pending applications disposed of and no order as to costs.