Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vii) That implicit in the fact of the original Defendant filing a Suit in the year 2013 against the Plaintiffs, the third partner Mr. Oomer Ahmed, is the fact of there being a dispute as regards the devolution of interest in favour of the Applicants.

(viii) That the Learned Single Judge has misinterpreted and misconstrued the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Akkabai Vs. Gowrawwa. The Learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the judgment of the Apex Court in Khemchand Vs. Vishnu Hari Patil in its proper perspective.

(ix) That if the judgments on which reliance is sought to be placed on behalf of the Applicants and the judgments on which reliance is sought to be placed by the Appellants are harmonized, then what flows from a reading of the said judgments is the fact that if there is a dispute as regards the devolution of interest, then an application for impleadment cannot be permitted.

4     (2012) 8 SCC 384


mmj                                                                                          16 of 45





                                                                         APPEAL-368&ors-17

10             Submissions   of   the   Learned   Senior   Counsel   Mr.   P.   S.   Dani 

appearing for the Appellant in Appeal (L) No.285 of 2017

(i) The Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dani appearing for the Appellant in Appeal (L) No.285 of 2017 adopted the submissions made by the Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Khambata, but in addition would contend that an application under Order XXII Rule 10 can only be filed whilst the person who has executed the documents in favour of the Applicants as a result of which there is a devolution of interest, is alive and cannot be filed after his demise.

26 Lastly to put the matter in perspective, having regard to the fact that whilst considering an application under Order XXII Rule 10 a detailed enquiry is not contemplated, the Court is therefore only required to see whether there is a transfer or a devolution interest in favour of the Applicants, once that be so the application for substitution / impleadment is required to be allowed. Applying the said yardstick to the facts of the present case and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court the impugned order passed by the Learned Single Judge allowing the Chamber Summons filed by the Applicants cannot be faulted with. To conclude, for the reasons aforestated, there is no merit in the above Appeal and the companion Appeals which are accordingly dismissed.