Difference between Intervention, Implemented and Substitution

Intervention( Order XVII Rule 3 Supreme Court Rules 2013 )

1. In Practice Supreme Court in exercise of its inherent power allows 3rd Party to intervene when such third party is a party to some proceedings in this Court or in High Court where the same or similar questions are in issue for the decision of this Court.

2. The court has also allowed corporate, NGOs,Educational Institutions etc to intervene in cases where the decision of the Court would affect their pending cases. Any party desirous of intervening will have to obtain permission of the court.

3. The party will be allowed to address the Court but will not have right to reply unless directed by Court.

4. Unless the Court ordered , an intervener shall not be entitled to cost.

5.In case where the intervention is allowed by the court, the intervener may file written submission prior to the hearing of the matter but shall not be entitled to address oral arguments unless otherwise directed by Court.The intervener shall be entitled to receive documents produced and relied upon by the petitioner(s) unless directed otherwise by the Court.

Case law: Khyerbari tea Co. Ltd Vs State of Assam & Ors-(1964) 5 SCR 975- Court held that Counsel of intervener is not allowed to right to reply, but in special circumstances the court may allow the counsel for intervener to reply.

Impleadment (Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC and Order XXI Rule 7 Supreme Court Rules 2013)

1. Where any person is sought to be impleaded in the petition as the legal representative of any party to the proceedings in the court below , the petition shall contain a prayer for bringing on record such person as the legal representative and shall be supported by affidavit setting out the facts showing him to be the proper person to be entered on the record as such representative.

Case law: 1. Anil Kumar Singh Vs Shivnath Mishra(1995) 3 SCC 147.

By operation of law the Court may have power to strike out the name of party improperly joined or add a party either on application or without application of either party but the condition precedent is that the court must be satisfied that the presence of the party to be added, would be necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.

2. Ruma Chakraborty vs. Sudha Rani Banerjee & Anr. 2005(8) SCC 140

The Plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the Suit against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the Suit. Thus, no person can compel the Plaintiff to allow such person to become the Co-Plaintiff or Defendant in the suit .

Substitution (Order XXII Rule 3 CPC and Order XXI Rule 8 Supreme Court Rules 2013 )

Where at any time between the filing of the petition for Special Leave to appeal and the hearing thereof the record becomes defective by reason of the death or change of status of a party to the appeal or for any other reason, an application shall be made to the court stating that who is the proper person to be substituted or entered on the record in place of or in addition to the party on record. Provisions contained in Order XIX Rule 30 S.C.R 2013 shall apply to the hearing of such petitions

Case law: Daya Ram & Ors Vs Shyam Sundari & Ors AIR 1965 SC 1049

Court held that impleaded legal representative sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased and the decision obtained with them on record will bind not merely those imp- leaded but the entire estate , including those not brought on record.