N. Rajaram v. R. Murali - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Third Party Application
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 -Order IX Rule 13: Can a third party to a decree can maintain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Contradictory views in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal and Ram Prakash Agarwal & Anr. v. Gopi Krishan - Referred to larger bench.
Case Info
Case name: N. Rajaram v. R. Murali & Ors.
Neutral citation: Not provided in the order extract (only SLP(C) No. 29260/2019 and the impugned HC case number are mentioned).
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Judgment/order date: 04‑02‑2026.
Caselaws and citations referred:
- Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 601.
- Ram Prakash Agarwal & Anr. v. Gopi Krishan (Dead) through Lrs, (2013) 11 SCC 296.
Statutes/laws referred:– Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
Brief summary (three sentences):The Supreme Court notes that there is a direct conflict between two coordinate bench decisions on whether a third party to a decree can maintain an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal permitted such an application, while the later decision in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan took the opposite view without considering the earlier ruling, and subsequent cases have followed Raj Kumar without noticing Ram Prakash Agarwal. To resolve this inconsistency and settle the legal position comprehensively, the Court has directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for reference to a larger Bench and ordered that the existing status quo (as per order dated 15.07.2019) shall continue until the next hearing.