Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 284 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999

Deendayal vs . Pitam Singh And Ors. on 30 April, 2015

18. In the light of the above, if the impugned order of the Board of Revenue is evaluated, it emerges that the applicants-respondents were impleaded as defendants in the suit only on this count that Savitri Devi's judgment has laid down an absolute rule that transferee pendente lite ought to be allowed to join as party in all cases. This Court is of the opinion that such conclusion drawn by the Board of Revenue without noticing the facts and circumstances of the case of Savitri Devi (supra), specially Para 8, referred to herein before and other parameters with regard to impleadment of a party is bad in law and hence is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue with direction to rehear and decide the revision petition afresh by assessing and evaluating the application for impleadment as parties in case No. 180/2005 pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dholpur in the light of the principles which govern the disposal of an application for impleadment as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. Tosh Apartments Pvt. Ltd. and others (supra), which at the cost of repetition are enumerated here as under:-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rooma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 17 October, 2023

In Savitri Devi [Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, (1999) 2 SCC 577] , the Court took exception to courts and tribunals being made parties. It is apposite to note here that propositions laid down in each case have to be understood in proper perspective. The civil courts, which decide matters, are courts in the strictest sense of the term. Neither the court nor the Presiding Officer defends the order before the superior court it does not contest. If the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction or revisional jurisdiction, as the case may be, calls for the records, the same can always be called for by the High Court without the Court or the Presiding Officer being impleaded as a party. Similarly, with the passage of time there have been many a tribunal which only adjudicate and they have nothing to do with the lis. We may cite a few examples: the tribunals constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Sales Tax Tribunal and such others. Every adjudicating authority may be nomenclatured as a tribunal but the said authority(ies) are different from that pure and simple adjudicating authorities and that is why they are called the authorities. An Income Tax Commissioner, whatever rank he may be holding, when he adjudicates, he has to be made a party, for he can defend his order. He is entitled to contest. There are many authorities under many a statute. Therefore, the proposition that can safely be culled out is that the authorities or the tribunals, who in law are entitled to defend the orders passed by them, are necessary parties and if they are not arrayed as parties, the writ petition can be treated to be not maintainable or the court may grant liberty to implead them as parties in exercise of its discretion. There are tribunals which are not at all required to defend their own order, and in that case such tribunals need not be arrayed as parties. To give another example: in certain enactments, the District Judges function as Election Tribunals from whose orders a revision or a writ may lie depending upon the provisions in the Act. In such a situation, the superior court, that is the High Court, even if required to call for the records, the District Judge need not be a party. Thus, in essence, when a tribunal or authority is required to defend its own order, it is to be made a party failing which the proceeding before the High Court would be regarded as not maintainable.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Parmeshwari Asnani vs State (Education Department)Ors on 28 August, 2017

In Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors (supra), the appellant filed a suit against her sons for decree of maintenance and creation of charge over ancestral properties. Interim injunction was granted by the Court restraining sons/respondents from alienating property. However, property was sold by one of the respondents. Hon'ble Apex Court held that purchasers are necessary party to the suit and their impleadment is necessary for deciding questions whether sales were committed in contempt and disregard of injunction and whether purchasers were bonafide transferees. It was also held that avoiding of multiplicity of suits is one of the object of the said provision.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendrasinh Bharatsinh Sarvaiya vs Kiritsinh Balvantsinh Jadeja on 21 July, 2003

14. I have considered the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The principle of Order I Rule 10 particularly clause (2) is that the primary meaning of a party is a litigant who has a part to play in the proceedings. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be effectively made. A necessary party is one whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of question involved in the proceedings. The necessary consideration before the Court while determining the question of impleadment of a party to the proceedings is whether the said party is necessary or proper party and presence of such party before the Court is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the subject-matter. The proper party is one whose presence is considered appropriate for effective decision of case. I have considered the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAVITRI DEVI VS. DISTRICT JUDGE (supra) and RAMESH HIRANAND KUNDANMAL VS. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY (supra) which has been relied upon by this Court in the case of NAVNITBHAI HARMANBHAI PATEL VS. PATEL RAMESHBHAI AMBALAL (supra) in which it is held that the only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action. The question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party. In this case the petitioner is a necessary party to adjudicate the right between the respondent and the petitioner in connection with the suit property.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yatindra Kumar Jha & Ors vs Smt.Ravindra Prabha Ojhain @Sh on 2 August, 2017

6. So far as purchase made in violation of injunction order is concerned, in Savitri Devi vs. District judge, Gorakhpur and ors (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the impleadment is necessary for deciding the Patna High Court FA No.236 of 1997 (42) dt.02-08-2017 questions whether sales were committed in contempt and disregard of injunction and whether purchasers were bona fide transferees and further to avoid multiplicity of the suits, the party can be added. Without presence of Navin Kumar Singh all the issues cannot be decided and as such for effective adjudication Navin Kumar Singh appears necessary to be added in this appeal as respondent no. 1. Due to adding of party no right and title can pass over the party and his right and title can be decided in the appeal itself.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - J M Sharma - Full Document

M.Ramanathan vs M.Vasantha on 21 October, 2003

524), that the assignees need not be impleaded as parties to the suit. In (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 577 after referring to the decision in (1992)2 SCC 524, it was observed that the said ruling has no application whatever is the case on hand. As stated earlier, on the facts in Savitri Devi's case the impleadment of respondents 3 to 5 as parties to the suit was warranted, since fraud and forgery were alleged to have been committed. Therefore and in those circumstances, the impleadment was upheld. This cannot be a ratio applicable to all cases, where alienees want to be impleaded in the suit.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - P Sridevan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next