Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 17 -

Varadarajan vs. Kanakavalli and others - (2020) 11 SCC 598 at para 11 reads as hereunder:

"11. The judgment in Mohinder Kaur [Mohinder Kaur v. Piara Singh, 1980 SCC OnLine P&H 251 :

AIR 1981 P&H 130] was referred to and approved by this Court in a judgment in Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava [Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava, (2010) 1 SCC 277 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 86] . In the said case, the High Court came to the conclusion that since the inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 of the Code was of a summary nature, it was limited only to the determination of the right of the appellant therein to be impleaded as the legal representative. This Court in the said case held as under: (Dashrath Rao Kate case [Dashrath Rao Kate v. Brij Mohan Srivastava, (2010) 1 SCC 277 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 86] , SCC pp. 283-85, paras 21 & 25-26) " 21. As a legal position, it cannot be disputed that normally, an enquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC is of a summary nature and findings therein cannot amount to res judicata, however, that legal position is true only in respect of those parties, who set up a rival claim against the legatee. For example, here, there were two other