Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 99 (4.15 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004

Puppala Suchitra And 3 Others vs K. Preamchander Reddy And 2 Others on 23 January, 2025

Furthermore, in the case of V.Narayana Reddy (supra 12) the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment rendered in Kesari Goutham Reddy v. Velpula John Victor Macaulay 13, in Raj Kumar (supra 7) and Amit Kumar Shaw (supra 11) to hold that a purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary party to safeguard their interests. In essence, it was recognized that a purchaser pendente lite has a legitimate stake in the outcome of the proceedings and should be permitted to participate in the suit to protect their rights and the said approach promotes justice and ensures that all parties with a legitimate interest in the dispute, are heard.
Telangana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Puppala Suchitra vs K. Preamchander Reddy on 23 January, 2025

Furthermore, in the case of V.Narayana Reddy (supra 12) the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on the judgment rendered in Kesari Goutham Reddy v. Velpula John Victor Macaulay 13, in Raj Kumar (supra 7) and Amit Kumar Shaw (supra 11) to hold that a purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary party to safeguard their interests. In essence, it was recognized that a purchaser pendente lite has a legitimate stake in the outcome of the proceedings and should be permitted to participate in the suit to protect their rights and the said approach promotes justice and ensures that all parties with a legitimate interest in the dispute, are heard.
Telangana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Rajaram vs R.Murali on 3 July, 2019

57. Further, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar versus Sardari Lal and others referred to supra , it has been observed that the expression employed in Rule 13 Order 9 of CPC that in a decree is passed ex parte against the defendant, he may apply for an order to set aside”, the word ”he” cannot be construed with such rigidity and so restrictively to exclude the person who have stepped into the shoes of the defendant, from moving and application for setting aside ex parte decree especially in presence of section 146 of CPC. The court held that though lis pendens transferee was not party to the proceeding he was still entitled to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Surajdeo Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 18 April, 2022

10. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, learned Counsel on the other hand relied upon the decision of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (2004) 2 SCC 601where an application filed by a transferee pendente lite under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was allowed. The plea that such a transferee could not be allowed to maintain the application under Order IX Rule 13 was expressly rejected. The following observations in paras 8 and 9 are noteworthy:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - K P Deo - Full Document

Bhaskaran vs Vijayaraghan And Ors. on 3 December, 2004

In the factual matrix presented before the Supreme Court in the case reported in Raj Kumar's case (2004 AIR SCW 470) this was a very substantial right and the trial Court and the appellate Court permitted the assignee to take the proceeding which the original party could have taken, namely, to apply to set aside the ex parte decree. The original party having parted with his rights may fail to impugn the ex parte decree and it would bind the assignee and it may cause irreparable injury. The facts of the present case does not present any such features. As already noted, this is a case where there is an assignment in favour of the third defendant by the original owner and he in turn transfers the property in favour of the petitioner with a clear understanding that there is a decretal liability to be liquidated and in fact reserving a very substantial portion of the amount with the petitioner for payment to the decree holder to be discharged as decretal liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that he has a right under Order XXI, Rule 69 of C.P.C. and he can exercise that right if he is brought on the party array. He would contend that under Order XXI, Rule 69 of the C.P.C. the party can make the payment and get the sale adjourned from to time. He would pray that having regard to the said right, there was substance in his contention that he should be brought on the party array. I have no hesitation in repelling this contention, having regard in particular to the conduct of the petitioner. I feel that the circumstances in which the assignment in favour of the petitioner took place as also his conduct disentitle him from being brought on the party array. I also feel that there is an insuperable obstacle in the petition being allowed. I am invited to interfere with the order in exercise of my powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that my jurisdiction is very limited and what is more it is to be exercised where the obligation of the High Court under the said Article being supervisory, my effort should be to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to bring to my notice any jurisdictional error or excess or error apparent on the fact of the record. He has no complaint that he was not heard, I am unable to persuade myself to hold that the exercise of powers by the Court below is perverse. Above all, I feel that the petitioner miserably failed to persuade me to hold that there is a manifest failure of justice.
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K Joseph - Full Document

Venkatasubbu vs C.Rajendran Prasad on 6 June, 2018

18. When even a lis pendens transferee cannot seek to come on record as a matter of right, the petitioners who purchased the property after two years of their vendors losing the battle, cannot seek to revive the cause of action that their vendors had against the defendants in the suit. Therefore the observations in paragraphs-9 and 10 of the decision in Raj Kumar's case, cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioners.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Abul Hossain vs Netai Nandi @ Netish Nandi & Ors on 23 May, 2025

62. It would thus appear that the transferee was not aware of the pendency of the suit which is not the case we are presently considering. While in the facts of the case of state of Raj Kumar (supra) the respondent no. 4 therein had purchased the suit property from the respondent nos. 2 and 3 by a registered deed of sale, during the pendency of a civil suit and the said respondent no. 4 in that case was not aware of the pendency of the suit and the vendors had rather stated in the sale deed that the property was not a subject matter of any litigation, the factual backdrop of the instant case shows that the substituted appellant herein was aware of the pendency of the partition suit before entering into the contract of sale with Gayatri.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

M/S. Yash Shree Realtors vs Sitabai Naik (Since Deceased) Thr Lrs 1) ... on 5 March, 2026

In support of his submissions he relied upon the following decisions of this Court : Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal [Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal, (2004) 2 SCC 601] ,Amit Kumar Shaw v.Farida Khatoon [Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, (2005) 11 SCC 403] ,Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd.v. Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd. [Vidur Impex & Traders (P) Ltd. v Tosh Apartments (P) Ltd., (2012) 8 SCC 384 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1] , Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb [Bibi Zubaida Khatoon v. Nabi Hassan Saheb, (2004) 1 SCC 191] and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd. [Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders & Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 :
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chandra Bai(D)Thr. Lrs. vs Khandalwal Vipra Vidyalaya Samiti . on 11 January, 2016

3. We have duly taken note of these decisions and it appears to us that in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (supra), this Court has held that in case of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on the Court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on record. Bringing of a lis pendens transferee on record is not as of right but is the discretion of the Court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next