Supreme Court grants leave to appeal on impleadment order

The case concerns a dispute over whether the High Court's earlier dismissal of an impleadment application bars subsequent purchasers from filing a fresh application under a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically regarding the restoration of a second appeal and their inclusion in the proceedings.

Who it concerns: Appellant: Sanjiv Kumar; Respondents: Shakuntla Devi and others (including subsequent purchasers Santosh Rani and Mohan Lal); Bench: Justice Augustine George Masih.

What the court decided

• The Court noted the Appellant inadvertently impugned the order allowing the recall of an earlier order, but clarified the grievance is against the order allowing impleadment, condonation of delay, and restoration of the appeal.
• The Court stated it would proceed to examine the matter on merits at the request of counsel and in the interest of substantive justice, despite the appeal potentially being unsustainable as framed.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'NON-REPORTABLE'.
• The Court noted that the Appellant's appeal, as it stands, may not be sustainable due to the incorrect order being impugned, but chose to hear the merits anyway.