Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan gained attention for affirming that once a party is impleaded and fails to object timely, they cannot later seek deletion. It explained the application of res judicata to impleadment orders under the CPC. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan: Introduction

Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan case revolves around the challenge by the Appellant to his impleadment as a legal heir in execution proceedings of a specific performance suit. The case mainly addressed the applicability of res judicata, timing of objections and the adjudication of tenancy and heirship under Muslim personal law.

Download Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan PDF

The case at hand centres around the challenge of the Appellant to his impleadment as a legal heir in the execution proceedings of a specific performance suit regarding a property sale agreement. Particularly, it involves whether the Appellant, who claims only tenancy rights inherited from his father and denies being a legal heir under Muslim personal law, can be removed from the party array after having been impleaded without objection earlier in the proceedings. The dispute addressed issues about the finality of impleadment orders and the applicability of res judicata to belated objections regarding party status in ongoing litigation. The following are the facts of Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan -

1. The Appellant is the grandson of Late Jameela Beevi, who was the original defendant in O.S. No. 617 of 1996 filed before the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad by the Respondent no. 1 (original plaintiff) and sought specific performance of a sale agreement dated 14th June, 1996 for a property valued at Rs. 6,00,000, with Rs. 1,50,000 as balance consideration.
2. The Appellant was a witness to the said sale agreement. The suit property is a 1-cent plot with a tiled-roofed shop situated in Palakkad Town, Kerala.
3. The property was originally purchased by Late Jameela Beevi through an assignment deed dated 10th September, 1976, which mentions tenancy rights of the father of the Appellant, Late Shahul Hameed, who allegedly occupied the property as a tenant since 1969 until his death in 1992.
4. The original suit was decreed ex parte on 30th June, 1998, which directed the execution of the sale deed. The ex parte decree was later set aside on appeal and the suit was restored for trial.
5. Upon retrial, the suit was decreed again on 17th March, 2003, affirmed the execution of the agreement. This decree was upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No. 18880 of 2008).
6. During execution proceedings initiated by the original plaintiff, Jameela Beevi died on 19th October, 2008, and her legal heirs were impleaded. Some heirs including the Appellant, raised objections and claimed that:

• The contract stood rescinded
• There was no relief of possession granted
• The balance consideration was not fully paid as per the decree

1. The Trial Court dismissed the application for rescission and held that possession was implicit in the decree and that the balance deposit was valid.
2. The High Court also rejected the rescission challenge.
3. The appellant filed an application and sought deletion of his name from party array on the grounds that:

• He was not a legal heir under Mohammedan Law
• He had tenancy rights inherited from his father
• His tenancy could not be adjudicated in execution proceedings
• The Trial Court dismissed his application on 19th June, 2013 and noted that:
  • He had already been impleaded without objection
  • He was a witness to the agreement
  • He was attempting to delay execution by raising belated and frivolous objections
• The High Court dismissed the challenge of the Appellant to the order of the Trial Court in OP(C) No. 2290 of 2013 by judgment dated 29th November, 2021 and affirmed that the application for deletion was rightly rejected.

Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan: Legal Issues

The following issues were addressed in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan 2025 - 

• Applicability of Res Judicata to Impleadment: The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of res judicata bars a party from raising objections to their impleadment after the order has attained finality?
• Timing of Objections to Impleadment: The Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan scrutinized whether a party can challenge their impleadment at a later stage under Order I Rule 10 CPC after failing to object at the appropriate time?
• Status of Legal Heir under Muslim Law: The Court analyzed whether the appellant qualifies as a legal heir under Muslim personal law for the purpose of impleadment?
• Adjudication of Tenancy Rights in Execution Proceedings: Lastly, the Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan examined whether tenancy rights inherited by the appellant can be adjudicated during execution proceedings?

Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan: Legal Provisions

Section 11, Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 22 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code played an important role in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan. The following are the analysis of these provisions -

1. 1. Order I Rule 10 CPC: It deals with the power of the Court to add or strike out parties at any stage of the proceedings. The Appellant sought deletion from the party list under this rule.
   2. Order XXII Rule 5 CPC: It deals with substitution of legal representatives after a party’s death. The Appellant in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan was impleaded as a legal heir after the original defendant died.

• Section 11 CPC: It bars re-litigation of issues that have been conclusively decided between the same parties. 

Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan: Judgment and Impact

On 23rd May, 2025, the 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan delivered a significant judgment. The Court held that the principle of res judicata is applicable to applications for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It means if a party had the opportunity to object to their impleadment or non-impleadment at the correct stage of the proceedings but failed to do so, they cannot raise the same objection later. Such an objection is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata.

In Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan case before the Supreme Court, the appellant had been impleaded in the suit as the legal heir of the defendant. The order of the Trial Court for impleadment became final as it was not challenged at the time. Later, the Appellant filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and sought to remove his name as a legal heir based on Muslim personal law, contended that since his father predeceased his mother, he could not be considered the legal heir of his grandmother. Both the Trial Court and the High Court rejected this application, after which the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Bench, led by Justice JB Pardiwala, upheld the rulings of the Lower Court. The Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan observed that the trial court had conducted a proper inquiry before impleading the Appellant and since no objection or revision was made at that stage, the matter had attained finality. The Court highlighted that although Order I Rule 10 allows the court to pass orders regarding impleadment "at any stage," it does not allow parties to repeatedly challenge the same issue after it has been conclusively decided.

The Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan further held that had the Appellant objected at the appropriate time under Order XXII Rule 5, the court could have considered the objection and potentially disallowed the impleadment. However, since the Appellant did not do so, he was barred from raising the objection later through an application under Order I Rule 10.

Consequently, the Supreme Court in Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the late challenge by the Appellant to his impleadment was barred by res judicata and that parties must raise objections regarding impleadment at the proper stage to avoid protracting the litigation unnecessarily. 

Conclusion

In Sulthan Said Ibrahim vs Prakasan 2025 the Supreme Court on 23rd May, 2025 affirmed that once a party is impleaded and does not timely object, they cannot later seek deletion under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The Court highlighted that such objections are barred by the principle of res judicata and must be raised at the correct procedural stage.