Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Adiveppa Channappa Kittur vs Rachappa Balappa Hosmane on 20 December, 1946
9. As noticed above, before Act No. 104 of 1976 proviso now added to Order 1 Rule 9 CPC was non-existent yet the Court had the occasion to examine this provision in Adiveppa Channappa Kittur v. Rachappa Balappa Hosmane, AIR (35) Bombay 211 (F.B.) and the Court held as under:-
Rameshwar Bux Singh And Ors. vs Ganga Bux Singh And Ors. on 28 April, 1950
10. Similarly, in Rameshwar Bux Singh and Ors. v. Ganga Bux Singh and Ors., A.I.R. (37) Allahabad 598 the Court held that as the party did not exercise the discretion in terms of Order 1 Rule 9 CPC at the earliest no indulgence needs to be shown in view of this conduct. Court, thus, declined to exercise its discretion under Order 1 Rule 9 CPC by observing that to allow plaintiff to add parties at this stage would be to reopen the whole trial and to send the case back for a fresh investigation, a course which ought to be discountenanced.
Profulla Chorone Requitte & Ors vs Satya Chorone Requitte on 2 March, 1979
11. The apex Court while examining a suit filed by trustees of endowment property of family deity for possession of certain rooms against one of the Shebaits held in Profulla Chorone Requitte and Ors. v. Satya Choron Requitte, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1682 that all the Shebaits were necessary parties and since all of them have not been impleaded such a suit is not properly constituted and so was liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
1