Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing M.P.Venkatachalam vs Govindan on 18 June, 2010

C.S.I.Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese vs Zopher Jothipaul on 29 November, 2016

9.Considering the above decision along with the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the trial Court, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the instant application and the said order warrant interference by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

C.S.I.Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese vs Zopher Jothipaul on 29 November, 2016

9.Considering the above decision along with the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the trial Court, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the instant application and the said order warrants interference by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

C.S.I.Tuticorin Nazareth Diocese vs Zopher Jothipaul on 29 November, 2016

9.Considering the above decision along with the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that the first respondent is not a necessary party to the suit and the trial Court, without appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioners, erroneously allowed the instant application and the said order warrant interference by this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Kumaravel vs Ramasamy on 20 January, 2023

In this regard, the decision reported in 2010 (3) TLNJ 109 (Civil) Venkatachalam v. Govindan and D.Vedanayagam and another v. Raja and Ors., reported in 2009 (2) TLNJ 529 (Civil), has been relied upon, whereas, this Court has elaborately dealt with the scope of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and the relevant portions in the said decision are, "A party can also be impleaded when the relief prayed for in the proceedings is sought to be made binding on him or when it is felt that he would be adversely affected by the ultimate outcome of the proceedings." Further, in a nutshell, it is clear that the tests to be applied for determining the right of a party to implead another, in a pending suit or other processing, may be crystallized into the following categories:-
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V B Subbaroyan - Full Document

Alladi Staram vs M/S.P.L.Finance And Investment on 2 April, 2013

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.T.V.Ramanujam appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the dispute is in respect of one ground 250 sqft situate in S.No.1652/3 and 1652/4 and as per the boundary recitals mentioned in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2, the said extent viz., 1 ground 250 sqft in S.No.1652/3 and 1652/4 were also sold to the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 and as a matter of fact, survey numbers were also mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and while mentioning the survey numbers, sub-division 4 in schedule 1 and 2 was written in ink and that was not initialled and taking advantage of the same, respondents 3 to 5 claimed that property in S.No.1652/4 viz., the property measuring 1 ground 250 sqft situate on the eastern side of the defendant's property was not conveyed to the plaintiffs and therefore, they are the owners of the property and having regard to the stand taken by the defendants viz., respondents 3 to 5, the plaintiffs/respondents 1 and 2 filed the application to implead the revision petitioner as well as respondents 6 to 8 as parties to the suit to have complete adjudication. He further submitted that except the revision petitioner, the other proposed defendants viz., respondents 6 to 8 did not contest the application and only the revision petitioner filed counter and even in the counter, he was not definite about the property which is under dispute being sold to the plaintiffs and therefore, having regard to the stand taken by the revision petitioner in the counter and also having regard to the stand taken by defendants 3 to 6 in the suit, they are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the claim and that was properly appreciated and therefore, the order of the court does not require any interference. He further submitted that having regard to the judgment reported in VIDUR IMPEX & TRADERS (P) LTD v. TOSH APARTMENTS (P) LTD ((2012) 8 SCC 384) and M.P.VENKATACHALAM v. GOVINDAN (2010 (4) CTC 318), the vendors are necessary parties and therefore, the court below has rightly allowed the application.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - R S Ramanathan - Full Document
1