Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)

Sanjay Gupta vs Smt. Kala Wati on 24 September, 1999

6. The petition is pressed to challenge the above mentioned order on the same very contentions as were urged before the learned trial MAC App. No. 1247/2017 Page 3 of 4 judge. Reliance is placed on decisions of learned single judges of this court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. Smt. Kala Wati 85 (2000) DLT 828, Prakash Khattar Vs. Shanta Jindal & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 138 and Bhim Singh Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. 149 (2008) DLT 34 to submit that the allotment in favour of the CRPF was in breach of the doctrine of lis-pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is also argued that the impleadment of a party against the stand taken by the plaintiff is permitted only if there is a legal right vesting in such additional party making him a necessary party within the meaning of the provision contained in Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 9 - J B Goel - Full Document

Bhim Singh vs Amar Nath And Ors. on 25 March, 2008

6. The petition is pressed to challenge the above mentioned order on the same very contentions as were urged before the learned trial MAC App. No. 1247/2017 Page 3 of 4 judge. Reliance is placed on decisions of learned single judges of this court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. Smt. Kala Wati 85 (2000) DLT 828, Prakash Khattar Vs. Shanta Jindal & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 138 and Bhim Singh Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. 149 (2008) DLT 34 to submit that the allotment in favour of the CRPF was in breach of the doctrine of lis-pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is also argued that the impleadment of a party against the stand taken by the plaintiff is permitted only if there is a legal right vesting in such additional party making him a necessary party within the meaning of the provision contained in Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 10 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Prakash Khattar vs Smt. Shanta Jindal & Ors. on 4 July, 2011

6. The petition is pressed to challenge the above mentioned order on the same very contentions as were urged before the learned trial MAC App. No. 1247/2017 Page 3 of 4 judge. Reliance is placed on decisions of learned single judges of this court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. Smt. Kala Wati 85 (2000) DLT 828, Prakash Khattar Vs. Shanta Jindal & Ors. 181 (2011) DLT 138 and Bhim Singh Vs. Amar Nath & Ors. 149 (2008) DLT 34 to submit that the allotment in favour of the CRPF was in breach of the doctrine of lis-pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It is also argued that the impleadment of a party against the stand taken by the plaintiff is permitted only if there is a legal right vesting in such additional party making him a necessary party within the meaning of the provision contained in Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - V K Shali - Full Document
1