ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 59(2), Order 1, Rule 10- - Proper and necessary party - Impleadment of - Word "Shall" in S.59(2) - Held, a person claiming to hold the land through the land-holder whether as tenant or otherwise shall be joined as a party - The words shall therefore is mandatory and thus legislative intent is clear that a suit will proceed..........
PATNA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleadment - Scope - Held, O.1.R.10(2) CPC does not speak about the right of a no, party to be impleaded as a party - It speaks about judicial discretion of Court to strike out or to add parties at any stage of a proceeding - Discretion under said Rule can be exercised either suo motu or on..........
PATNA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleadment - Intervener - There is no finding recorded by Court below that in absence of interveners relief claimed by plaintiff cannot be granted in his favour - On other hand, nature of claim stated by intervener appears to be not entertainable and is not related to claim of plaintiff - Held,..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 22, Rule 10(1), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section , Order 1, Rule 10, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 52-- Transferee pendente lite - May not be a necessary party to be impleaded U.O.1.R.10 CPC - However, he is entitled to step in the shoes of the litigant whose interest is devolved upon him - S.52 TPA is not an embargo for permitting the assignee to step into the shoes of the litigating party on the..........
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleading of a party - Suit for specific performance - Son of defendant No.1 seeking impleadment on the plea that suit property is ancestral property and he has interest therein and therefore he is a necessary party - A stranger to contract for sale claiming independent title is not a necessary..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Necessary party - Sub-broker - Defendant No.14 claims that sub-broker of defendant No.14 in suit transaction is a necessary party - Defendant No.14 has made a claim in his written statement without filing a counter-claim against plaintiffs - Plaintiffs make no claim upon sub-broker - Held,..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleading of a party - An attesting witness to an agreement to sell is neither a necessary party nor a proper party to a suit for specific performance...........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Addition of parties - Judicial discretion - Held, question of addition of parties U.O.1.R.10(2) CPC is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of court - It is of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of each case - What is to be seen is that..........
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleadment of a party - Application for - Delay of 7 years - Petitioner, son of defendant sought his impleadment after lapse of 7 years form the date of institution of suit on the ground that he is coparcener of joint Hindu family - Earlier Trial court was directed to conclude the proceeding..........
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleading of a party - Suit for specific performance - Sons of defendant allowed to be impleaded as a party to the suit on the plea that property in dispute is ancestral coparcenary joint property in the hands of their father and he has no right to alienate the same - Held, in a suit for specific..........