M/S SUPER CLOUD PVT LTDversusSMT. POONAM SINGH AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                    CIVIL REVISION No. - 49 of 2026

M/S Super Cloud Pvt Ltd
                                                             .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
Smt. Poonam Singh And Another
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)        : Devesh Kumar Verma, Sheetal Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     :

Court No. - 39
                      HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist/third party. Perused the record.

2. The instant civil revision under Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 has been filed against the order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), District Kanpur Nagar dismissing the revisionist
impleadment application (paper no:63Ga) made under Order 1 Rule 10 read
with Section 151 C.P.C. in Original Suit no. 963 of 2025.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist/third party has submitted that a bare
perusal of paragraph no. 2 of the plaint and paragraph no. 11 of the written
statement, along with the relief claimed in the suit, shows that the dispute
relates to land admeasuring 789.65 sq. meters of Gata No. 759, out of the
total area of 1184.48 sq. meters of Plot No. 759, Block W, Scheme 2, Juhi
Kalan, Kanpur Nagar. The said land was gifted to the plaintiff by way of a
gift deed dated 16.10.2023, executed by her husband, Shri Mahendra Pratap
Singh, in her favour. The plaintiff, Smt. Poonam Singh, thereafter succeeded
to the retail outlet dealership in respect of the said land.

4. It is further submitted that Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh had already
executed a registered agreement to sell dated 30.09.2019 in favour of the
revisionist, after receiving Rs. 78,11,000/- as earnest money. On the basis of
the said agreement, the revisionist had already filed Civil Suit No. 1917 of
2024 (M/s Super Cloud Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mahendra Pratap Singh and Smt.
Poonam Singh) in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), District
Kanpur Nagar, seeking specific performance.

5. Learned counsel has next submitted that the gift deed dated 16.10.2023
was executed during the pendency of the said suit, without the permission of
the court, and is thus hit by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act.

6. It is contended that the revisionist/third party is a necessary and proper
party to be impleaded in Original Suit No. 963 of 2025 and had rightly filed
                                                             CLRE No. 49 of 2026
                                 2

an impleadment application dated 11.11.2025 (Paper No. 71C), supported by
an affidavit (Paper No. 72C). The plaintiff filed objections dated 13.11.2025
but did not deny the execution of the registered agreement to sell dated
30.09.2019 or the filing of the aforesaid suit for specific performance.
Therefore, the revisionist/third party is a proper party within the meaning of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order I C.P.C., and the application ought to have
been allowed. However, the trial court wrongly and illegally dismissed the
same by the impugned order dated 16.01.2026.

7. It has further been contended that the entire area measuring 1184.48 sq.
meters of Plot No. 759, Village Juhi Kalan, Tehsil and District Kanpur
Nagar, was leased vide lease deed dated 01.07.2011 to M/s Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. for a period of 20 years and 11 months. Shri Mahendra
Pratap Singh was appointed as a dealer of BPCL, but his dealership was
terminated on 18.04.2019 due to alleged malpractices. Although the lease
was valid up to 31.05.2041, he allegedly executed the gift deed dated
16.10.2023 in favour of his wife, Smt. Poonam Singh. Consequently, Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. filed Suit No. 165 of 2025 on 13.11.2025
against Smt. Poonam Singh and her husband for permanent injunction,
which is still pending. Upon learning about Original Suit No. 963 of 2025,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. also filed an impleadment application
dated 04.11.2025 (Paper No. 63 Ga-2) under Order I Rule 10 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. However, the trial court dismissed the said application
by the same impugned order dated 16.01.2026.

8. Learned counsel contended that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of
Order I C.P.C., a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can
be passed, but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision
on the questions involved in the proceedings. The addition of parties is not a
question of initial jurisdiction but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in
light of the facts and circumstances of each case.

9. It is further contended that the trial court, while ignoring this settled
proposition of law, also failed to consider the issue regarding the valid title
of the plaintiff, Smt. Poonam Singh, over the disputed plot, on the basis of
which she obtained the MS & HSD retail outlet dealership in the name and
style of "Shri Narayan Fuels," situated at Plot No. 759, Block W, Scheme 2,
Juhi Kalan, Kanpur Nagar.

10. Learned counsel argued that the trial court, while rejecting the
impleadment application, failed to consider and discuss the uncontroverted
facts, which clearly establish that the presence of the revisionist is necessary
for complete adjudication of the controversy, including the question of title
over the disputed land, on account of which the defendant, Indian Oil
Corporation, has stopped the supply of MS & HSD to the outlet.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiff, Smt. Poonam Singh,
derived no valid title on the basis of the gift deed executed by her husband
during the pendency of Civil Suit No. 1917 of 2024 for specific
performance, filed by M/s Super Cloud Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of the
                                                                                                       CLRE No. 49 of 2026
                                                                        3

                                    registered agreement to sell dated 30.09.2019 executed in its favour by Shri
                                    Mahendra Pratap Singh.

                                    12. Learned counsel for the revisionist/third party has relied on the law laid
                                    down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baluram v. P. Chellathangam,
                                    AIR 2015 SC 1264, paragraph 13, which is as follows:
                                    "13. After due consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the view that the High
                                    Court erred in interfering with the order of the trial Court impleading the appellant as
                                    a party defendant. Admittedly, the appellant is a beneficiary of the Trust and under the
                                    provisions of the Trusts Act, the Trustee has to act reasonably in exercise of his right
                                    of alienation under the terms of the trust deed. Appellant cannot thus be treated as a
                                    stranger. No doubt, it may be permissible for the appellant to file a separate suit, as
                                    suggested by Respondent No.1, but the beneficiary could certainly be held to be a
                                    proper party. There is no valid reason to decline his prayer to be impleaded as a party
                                    to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Order I Rule 10(2), CPC, the Court to add a
                                    necessary or proper party so as to "effectually and completely adjudicate upon and
                                    settle all the questions involved in the suit"."

                                    13. Having considered the submissions and material on record, it is evident
                                    that the agreement to sell dated 30.09.2019 and the pending suit for specific
                                    performance confer a prima facie interest upon the revisionist in the subject
                                    property. The subsequent execution of the gift deed during the pendency of
                                    the suit attracts the doctrine of lis pendens.

                                    14. In such circumstances, the presence of the revisionist is necessary for
                                    effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The
                                    trial court, therefore, erred in law in rejecting the impleadment application.

                                    15. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.01.2026 is set aside. The
                                    matter is remitted to the trial court to reconsider and decide the impleadment
                                    application afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations
                                    made hereinabove.

                                    16. The civil revision is, accordingly, disposed of.



                                    April 30, 2026
                                    M. Tarik
                                                                                                      (Abdul Shahid,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD TARIK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad