In Brief
In this mortgage redemption suit, the appellant mortgaged her shop to the respondent and later sought possession through redemption. The first respondent admitted the claim but stated he had allowed a third person (Rakesh Kumar) to use the shop. During trial, the appellant sought to implead Pawan Kumar (who was actually in possession) as a necessary party and amend the plaint. The Trial Court and High Court rejected this application citing procedural rules against late amendments. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a person in actual possession is a necessary party. Despite the delay in filing the impleadment application, the Court allowed it in the interest of justice, as the appellant appeared to have been kept in the dark about the possession arrangement by relatives of the defendants.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.