Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Ponnuswami Gounder vs Rama Boyan And Ors. on 24 April, 1978 cites

Pyari Mohun Bose vs Kedarnath Roy And Ors. on 31 January, 1899

226, which was decided in 1898 and Pyari Mohan Bose v. Kedarnath Roy (1899) I.L.R. 26 Cal. 409 (F.B.) : 3 C.W.N. 271, which was decided in 1899 it has consistently been held by Courts in this country that where two parties contract with a third party, a suit by one of the joint promisees, making the other as co-defendant, is maintainable even if the plaintiff does not prove that the other joint promisee has refused to join him as a co-plaintiff.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Biri Singh And Anr. vs Nawal Singh And Ors. on 16 January, 1898

This is a general rule which takes care of the interests of the defendant who is interested, in the case of a suit like this, in having all the lessors as parties to the suit so that he may not be subjected to further litigation. But the rule is not without an exception. The reason is that a person cannot be compelled to be a plaintiff for, as is obvious, he cannot be compelled to bring an action at law if he does not want to do so. At the same time, it is equally true that a person be cannot be prevented from bringing an action by any rule of law or practice, merely, because he is a joint promisee and the other promisee refuses to join as a co-plaintiff. The proper and the only course in such a case is to join him as a pro forma defendant. As would appear from Biri Singh v. Nawal Singh (1902) I.L.R. 24 All.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1