Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Vivek Kumar Dhallam vs Nisha Puri & Anr on 13 December, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 96

       

  

  

 

 
 
 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU.            
CRev No. 134 OF 2010  
Vivek Kumar Dhallam  
Petitioners
Nisha Puri & anr.
Respondent  
!Mr. B. D. Sundan, Advocate.
^Mr. Pranav Kohli, Advocate for 1

Honble Mr. Justice Dr. Aftab H. Saikia, Chief Justice.
Date: 13.12.2010 
:J U D G M E N T :

Heard Mr. B. D. Sudan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.

The legality and correctness of order dated 29.11.2010, passed by Sub-Judge Jammu, in File no. 332-A/Civil Misc., has been assailed in the civil jurisdiction of this Court.

The basic issue raised herein is that as to whether the petitioner be permitted to be impleaded in restoration proceedings wherein the non-applicant-plaintiff has sought for restoration of his civil suit, which was dismissed for default on 09.12.2009.

Learned Sub-Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties also relying on Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, has, by passing a reasoned order, observed that the Court is empowered to add or strike out any party in a suit either suo motu or on asking of any party, but this provision of law does not refer to any restoration proceedings and, accordingly, dismissed the application seeking impleadment of the party in the restoration proceedings.

Admittedly, the suit in question was dismissed on 09.12.2009. Since the suit was dismissed till it is restored back, there is no proceeding pending before the Court. The proceeding of any nature shall start only after restoration of the said suit. Since the suit has not yet been restored, this Court, in the light of the above stated provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC, is of the view that impleadment application is pre-mature.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or any jurisdictional error warranting interference with the impugned order.

This Civil Revision, accordingly, stands dismissed.

(Dr. Aftab H. Saikia) Chief Justice Jammu:

13.12.2010 Sunita, JS.