Holding

A decree obtained by suppression of fact or collusively is not executable against persons who were not parties to the suit, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with the executing court’s order of impleadment.

Summary

V.J. Thomas filed a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC for declaration of title, possession and an injunction against respondents 3‑5, publishing a notice under Order 1 Rule 10. The respondents did not appear and an ex‑parte decree was passed. In the execution proceedings, respondents 1 and 2, who were not parties to the original suit, filed applications to set aside the decree, condone delay and be impleaded as defendants. The executing court allowed their impleadment. The Kerala High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision, and the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a decree obtained by suppression of fact or collusion cannot be executed against persons who were not parties to the suit and found no reason to interfere with the executing court’s order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a third party can be impleaded in a suit filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC after an ex‑parte decree has been passed.
Whether a decree obtained by suppression of fact or collusively is enforceable against persons who were not parties to the suit.
Whether the executing court’s order to implead respondents 1 and 2 and to allow condonation of delay is amenable to interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 10, s. Order 1 Rule 8, s. Order 9 Rule 13
Constitution of Indias. Article 136

Subjects

Order 1 Rule 8impleadmentex‑parte decreecondonation of delayCivil Proceduredecree executionthird partycollusionArticle 136

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 378

~
A SHRI V.J. THOMAS
II.
SHRI PATHROSE ABRAHAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 989 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 5, 2008
8
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 rr 8 & 10:
_.).
_,,

-
Execution of decree - lmpleadment of defendants/
c respondent nos. 1 and 2 - Allowed by Executing. Court ""."'"
Correctness of - Held:.A decree obtained by suppression of
fact or collusively would not be executable against those who
were not parties to the Suit - Executing Court allowed the
application for impleadment of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to enable
D them to press their application for setting aside ex-parte decree
upon condonation of delay - Under the circumstances,
Supreme Court in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under ...
~
Article-136 of the Constitution found no reason to interfere with
the impugned order - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136
E - Discretionary jurisdiction - Exercise of.
Appellant filed a Suit for declaration of his title, for
possession of the suit property and for re$training the
respondents 3 to 5 from interfering with his right to enjoy
the property by entering upon it or using it as a pathway
F as if it was a public pathway. A publication was also made -+
in a newspaper purported to be in terms of Order 1 Rule
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since respondent Nos.
3 to 5 did not appear in the suit, an ex-pa rte decree was ~'
passed by the trial court. Appellant filed application for l
.G execution of the decree. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
applicatjon for setting aside the decree, to implead them ..,. .;.J---

to contest the suit, to condone the delay in filing
application. I.As were allowed by the Executing Court
impleading respondent Nos.1 & 2 to contest the suit.
H 378
.
SHRI V.J. THOMAS v. SHRI PATHROSE ABRAHAM 379
& ORS.

Revision application filed by the appellant was dismissed A
by the Single Judge of the High Court. Hence, the present
appeal.
Appellant contended that a suit, wherein notice
under Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure has been
issued; could not have been reopened at the instance of B

.. * ,t
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 without allowing their
. application for condonation of delay and for setting aside
the ex parte decree.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court c
HELD: 1.1 A suit filed in terms of Order I Rule 8 of
C.P.C. should ordinarily be premised on the ground that ·
the defendants represent the parties interested in the suit.
. Defendants in such a suit, although must be able to
represent the public in general, but no personal decree D
can be passed against them. To what extent the original
defendants were interested in the suit property at least in
::...
.4{
respect of the portion thereof is not known [Para 13)
[383-D, E]
1.2 A litigant may execute a decree which was E
obtained for the benefit of the people of the locality but if
he intends to execute a decree which was obtained for
his own benefit, those who would be affected thereby
should ordinarily be made parties to the suit. If a_ vntage
.,. pathway is the subject matter of the suit on the premise F
that it is the personal property of the plaintiff, those who
use the said pathway or at least have lands adjacent
thereto should ordinarily be impleaded as parties. In the
latter case, like the present one, applying the legal
principles, this Court is of the opinion that a decree which G
has been obtained by suppression of fact or collusively
• i' would not be executable against those who were not
parties to the suit. [Para 14] [383-F; G; 384-A]
1.3 This Court has no idea as to what was the nature
of interest was claimed by the Original Defendant Nos.1 H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A to 3(Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) in the suit land. In any event,
--r
whether the service of notice was proper would also be
the subject matter of an enquiry by the trial court. It has
also to be seen as to whether the notice in terms of Order
I Rule 10 of the Code was published in a newspaper
B having a wide circulation in the locality. [Para 16] [384-E,
F, G]
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras vs. T.N.
Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608 - referred to.
.....'* .
c 2. If for the purpose of examination of the question, /It-
amongst others, the Executing Court has allowed the
applications for impleadment of the respondent Nos.1 and
3 so as to enable them to press their applications for .,I

. ,...
1

setting aside the ex-parte decree upon condonation of
delay. No reason is found to interfere therewith in exercise
D of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. [Para 18] [385-G; 386-A]
Union of India & Ors. vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar
& Ors. (1998) 4 SCALE 659 and Church of North India vs.
~- -
E Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 760 - referred
to.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 989
of 2008.

F From the final Judgment I Order dated 30.6.2005 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernaku~am in C.R.P. No. 272 of 2004. -+
V.J. Francis, P.I. Jose andAnupam Mishra for the Appellant.
M.T. George for the Respondents.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. T -
2. A question of some importance as to whether a third
party can be impleaded in a suit filed under Order I Rule 8 of the
H Code of Civil Procedure is involved in this appeal which arises
SHRI V.J. THOMAS v. SHRI PATHROSE ABRAHAM 3~1
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

out of the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2005 passed by A
a Learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in CRP No.
272 of 2004 dismissing the revision application filed by tt)e
appellant herein challenging the order dated 17.10.2003 pass~d
by Additional sub Court, Kottayam.
3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. B

4. Appellant herein filed Original Suit No. 364 of 1997 in
the Court of Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, for declaration of
his title and for possession of the suit property. A prayer therein
was made for restraining the defendants who were three in c
number (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein) from interfering with
his right to enjoy the property by entering upon it or using it as a
pathway as if it was a public pathway; A purported publication
was also made in a newspaper purported to be in terms of Order
I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
D
5. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein did not appear in· the
suit as a result whereof, an ex-parte decree was passed on
26.3.1998. An application for execution of the said decree was
filed. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein in the said execution
case filed five applications, the details whereof are as under: E
l.A.No.965/2002- Under Order 9 Rule 13, for setting
aside the exparte decree.
l.A.No.966/2002- For Condonation of Delay
l.A.No.967/2002- Application for Stay of all the F
proceedings in.the execution.
l.A.No.968/2002- Application filed by the respondent
no.1 for permission to contest the suit .
and to add himself in the array of G
parties as additional defendant No.1.
l.A.No.969/2002- Application filed by respondent No.2
for permission to contest the suit and
for making her as additional defendant
No.5. H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. .

A 6. The Executing Court allowed I.A No. 968 of 2002 and
969 of 2002 impleading respondent Nos. 1and 2 as defendant
No. 5 and 7 in the suit. The Revision Application filed thereagainst
has been dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by ·
reason of the impugned judgment.
B 7. Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, submitted that a· suit, wherein notice under
Or:Qer I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure has been issued, *
~
could not have been reopened at the instance of the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein without allowing their application for
c condonation of delay and for setting aside the ex pa rte decree.
It was urged that no case has been made out for condonation of
delay as the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree
was filed after more than four years from the passing thereof.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, in any event, it was contended,
D
could not have represented the panchay·at and, thus, the
impugned order is unsustainable.
8. Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respond~nt, however, would support the impugned
E judgment.
9. The suit land measuring 450 ft. x 4 ft. starts from
Vattachalpady junction of Manarcadu-Thengana PWD road and
ends at Kuttiyilpadyperumpanachi Panchayat road on the east.

F Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were not parties to the suit. They,
""l
in their applications, inter alia, contended that the appellant and
the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 herein are neighbours and close
associates. The suit was a collusive one. Leave of the Court
under Order 1 Rule 8 was obtained on a misrepresentation.
G 10. A specific contention was also raised that plaintiff-
petitio·ner deliberately and intentionally had not impleaded the
-"t
users of the pathway in the said suit. ltwas stated that publication
of the notice purported to be under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was
made is the newspapers which did not have wide circulation in
H the locality.
·~
l

SHRI VJ. THOMAS v. SHRI PATHROSE ABRAHAM 383
& ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
... · 11. The High Court has, inter alia, relying upon the decision A
·of th.e Madras High Court in Swaminatha Mudaliar vs.
Kumaraswami Chettiar and others [(1923) 44 MLJ 282]
accepted the said contentions of the respondent, holding :
"It may be unusual to bring fresh plaintiffs on the record
after a decree has been passed; but there is authority for 8
doing so under Order I Rule 10.
~
A
Order 1 Rule 8 expressly permits any person on whose
behalf a representative suit is instituted to apply to the
Court to be brought on the record, and the words of this c
·- rule are not limited, as they are by Order 1 Rule 10 by the
purpose being expressetl as that of adjudication on the
questions arising in the suit. "
12. The plaint is not before us. The application purported
to have been filed by the applicant under Order 1 Rule 8 is also D
not before us. On what basis, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were

' . impleaded in the suit and in which capacity, thus, is not known.
13. A suit filed in terms of Order 1 Rule 8 should ordinarily
be premised on the ground that. the defendants represent the
parties interested in the suit Defendants in such a suit, although
E
must be able to represent the public in general, but no personal
decree can be passed against them. To what extent the original
defendants were interested in t_he suit property at least in respect
of the portion thereof is not known.
F
+ 14. A litigant may execute a decree which was obtained
for the benefit of the people of the locality but if he intends to
' execute a decree which was obtained for his own benefit, those
\
_ who would be affected thereby should ordinarily be made parties

• •'
T
to the suit. Similarly, if a village pathway is the subject matter of
the suit on the premise that it is the personal property of the
plaintiff, those who use the said pathway or at least have lands
G

.... adjacent thereto should ordinarily be impleaded as parties. In
the latter case, like the present one, applying the legal principles,
as noticed hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that a decree
H
x r

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

-f·
A which has been obtained by suppression of fact or collusively
;
would not be executable against those who were not parties to
the suit.
15. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Francis on Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy [(1990)
B 1 sec 608] wherein the question which arose for consideration
centered around the maintainability of the suit at the instance of -t
the plaintiffs who belonged to the category of low income group ...t.
against Housing Board for a permanent injunction from
demanding and calculating from the allottees any additional
c price, was answered in the following terms : ~

"Coming to the relevant circumstances in the present case,
it will be seen that all the allotments in Ashok Nagar were
made under the same scheme and all the relevant facts
are common. The basis of the impugned demand of the
D
appellant is equally applicable to all the allottees and the
plea of the plaintiff is available to all of them. The trial court
was, therefore, perfectly right in permitting the plaintiff to
proceed under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
.. "

Procedure. Nobody in this situation can complain of any
E inconvenience or injustice. On the other hand, the appellant -
is being saved from being involved in unnecessary
repeated litigation."
16. As indicated hereinbefore, we have no idea as to what
was the nature of interest was claimed by the Original Defendant
F
No. 1 to 3 (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) in the suit land. In any event,
-+
whether the service of notice was proper would also be the
subject matter of an enquiry by the learned trial court. It has also
to be seen as fo whether the notice in terms of Order I Rule 10
of the Code was published in a newspaper having a wide
G
circulation in the locality.
-+-
17. In Union of India & Ors. v. DinanathShantaram
Karekar & Ors. [1998 (4) SCALE 659], this Court held: '
"So far as the service of show cause notice is concerned,
H
i--
SHRI V.J. THOMAS v. SHRI PATHROSE ABRAHAM 385
& ORS. [S.S. SINHA, J.]
'
.,. it also cannot be treated to have been served. Service of A
this notice was sought to be effected on the respondent
by publication in a newspaper without making any earlier
effort to serve him personally by tendering the show cause
notice either through the office peon or by registered post.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the newspaper B
in which the show-cause notice was published was a
t popular newspaper which was expected to be read by the
;,_
public in general or that it had wide circulation in the area
or locality where the respondent lived. The show-cause
notice cannot, therefore, in these circumstances, be held c
to have been served on the respondent. In any case; since
~
the very initiation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad
for the reason that the charge sheet was not served, all
subsequent steps and stages, including the issuance of
the stiow-cause notice would be bad."
D
In Church of North India v. Lavajibhai Ratanjibhai & Ors.
[(2005) 10 sec 760], it was observed
"71 ...... bars a suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public
trust. C.N.I. got itself registered as a public trust in the year
1981. A suit evidently was filed by the plaintiffs in the year E
1980 because C.N.I. was not then entitled to file a suit. It
may be true that the suit was filed under Order 1, Rule 8
of the Code of Civil Procedure but therein the question as
to whether the Appellant herein, being a registered trust
became entitled to the properties of Brethren Church could F
not have been gone into. What is prohibited is to enforce
a right· on behalf of a public trust. When the plaintiffs
intended to enforce a right on behalf of the Appellant, the

..,
suit was evidently not maintainable."
G
18. If for the purpose of examination of the said question,
t- amongst others, the executing court has allowed the applications
for impleadment of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 herein as
defendant No. 4 and 5, so as to enable them to press their
applications for setting aside the ex-parte decree upon
H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A condonation of delay; we do not see any reason .to interfere
therewith iii exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India.
19. For the reasons above mentioned, there is no merit in
this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.
8 Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand
only).
1
A_
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.