Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Bhupendra Narayan Sinha vs Rajeswar Prosad Bhakat on 24 March, 1931

The Goa Volleyball Association vs Volleyball Federation Of India

"12. In our view, where an application has been made under Order XXIII, Rule 1 the plaintiff is entitled to withdraw his suit and the defendants cannot be heard to oppose such prayer. But the said legal right of the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit is not unconditional or absolute. The Court can only exercise its jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs where the interests of the defendants are not adversely affected in any way if the plaintiffs are allowed to withdraw the suit. To Illustrate, in a partition suit by a sole plaintiff against defendants, the former cannot be allowed to withdraw the suit inasmuch as a defendant having a cause of action against such plaintiff, may be allowed to be transposed as plaintiff in the suit. Reliance may be Placed on Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeshwar Prosad, 56 Ind App 228 at p. 229 = (AIR 1931 PC 162). The Judicial Committee in this case held that transposition of a party under Order 1, Rule 10 should be allowed where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Similarly, in a suit under Section 62 of the Code a plaintiff is not allowed to withdraw the suit if one of the Page 22/33 http://www.judis.nic.in C.S.No.113 of 2020 and O.A.No.155 of 2020, A.No.1086, 1087, 1126, 1202 and 2640 of 2020 defendants makes en application to proceed with the suit after being transposed as a plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Jethiben vs Maniben And Anr. on 18 March, 1983

7. It is the submission of Mr. Barot that if transposition would have been allowed, it would have saved multiplicity of suits. In order to support his contention. Mr. Barot relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeswar Prasad. AIR 1931 PC 162. In that decision it has been held by the Privy Council that the course of adding pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. These can be no dispute with this principle, but it refers to pro forma defendants, meaning thereby, the defendants who are brought on record because they are necessary or proper parties without any relief having been sought against them and they are merely pro forma. It should be noted that in that case, suit was filed by the appellant for declaration of his ownership and possession of the sub-soil, and an injunction restraining the respondents from digging and removing the stones, earth and minerals, etc. Therein it was found that all the members of the family were parties to the suit and were at least jointly entitled to the whole, The pro forma defendants asked that a decree should be passed in favour of the appellant. If there was a technical objection to that the Court clearly had power at any stage of the proceedings to remedy the defect under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code by adding the pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs with the appellant.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

P. Parukutty Amma And Anr. vs K.M. Ramanunni Nair And Ors. on 26 November, 1965

Rule 10(2) can be exercised by the court even suo motu without any application by the party concerned In this connection the Supreme Court quotes with approval the observation of the Privy Council in Bhupendra v. Rajeswar, AIR 1931 PC 162, in the effect that the power vested in Order 1. Rule 10(2) ought to be exercised by a court for doing complete justice between the parties Therefore, in this case the party namely the 18th defendant who has been transposed as the plaintiff by order dated 8-6-1965 in I. A. 447/1965, is admittedly a sharer and has also paid the necessary court fee. Therefore, he was, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, entitled to be impleaded as plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings. And in this case, the application filed by him for getting himself transposed as plaintiff, cannot certainly be considered to be not valid; nor can it be stated that the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower court in allowing him to be impleaded as plaintiff is one without jurisdiction.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Mahindra Singh And Ors. vs Chander Singh And Ors. on 23 January, 1956

I am in respectful agreement with the principles laid down by their Lordships, but they do not apply to the present case. In the present suit Mt. Nunawati, the original plaintiff, was unconnected with Awadh Behari, on the findings of the Courts below, and as such she was not a reversioner, much less the nearest reversioner to the estate of Awadh Behari Singh, in a case like the present, where a suit is brought by a stranger to the family, and who is not the next, or even a reversioner of the last male-holder, then on her death, her suit must come to an end, because the admitted legal representative, even if he is a party to the suit as a defendant, cannot continue it in place of the original plaintiff after her death. There was, therefore, no question of adding Mahinder Singh, defendant 7, as a co-plaintiff after the death of Mt. Nunawati, The question of adding pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs arises only when the original plaintiff is already on the record, but for some technical reason he is not entitled to get a decree either for the full amount, or a portion of it, and, therefore, it is necessary to have the defendant, or the pro forma defendant, transposed as a co-plaintiff in order to give a decree to the plaintiff, as was the case in the Privy Council decision, just referred to. The present case, however, is entirely different, and, therefore, the first contention of Mr. Dayal must be overruled.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Basudeb Narayan Singh And Ors. vs Shesh Narayan Singh And Ors. on 19 May, 1978

15. That brings me to the next point as to whether it was justified in transposing the intervenor defendant to the category of plaintiff. In this respect the law is more than clear. There is no bar in law to a defendant asking to be transposed to the category of the plaintiff provided the claim is founded on the same cause of action. In a suit for partition, whether it be plaintiff or defendant, the cause of action is the same. It is said that there was no objection to the impleading of the intervenor defendant Parmila Devi. In this connection, however, it has been pointed out that she claims to be a daughter of Mahendra, but that claim is denied by the other parties. That makes little difference. It can happen in any similar case of a pro forma defendant, who may claim to be entitled to a share, It is well settled that if it is necessary for a proper adjudication of the real controversy in suit, the court may, acting under Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of the Code, add or strike out parties or transpose them from one category to the other (see R. S. Maddanappa (deceased) v. Chandramma, AIR 1965 SC 1812 and Bhupendra Narayan Sinha v. Rajeswar Prosad, Bhakat, AIR 1931 PC 162). In the last case the Privy Council said that the course of adding pro forma defendants as co-plaintiffs should always be adopted where it is necessary for a complete adjudication upon the questions involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. In this view of the matter, the court below had the jurisdiction to decide as to whether or not Parmila Devi should be allowed to be transposed to the category of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs to the category of defendants. The court below has decided it in favour of the intervenor defendant. It cannot, therefore be said that the order in this respect suffers from want of jurisdiction or illegal exercise thereof,
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next