Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Amarjit Singh Kalra (Decd.) Thr. Lrs. vs Pramod Gupta (Decd.) Lrs. & Ors. on 5 April, 2013
19. The exposition of the Constitution Bench in Sardar
Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by LRs and others (supra) is as
under:
“34. In the light of the above discussion, we hold:
(1) Wherever the plaintiffs or appellants or petitioners
are found to have distinct, separate and independent
rights of their own and for the purpose of convenience
or otherwise, joined together in a single litigation to
vindicate their rights the decree passed by the Court
thereon is to be viewed in substance as the
combination of several decrees in favour of one or the
other parties and not as a joint and inseverable decree.
12
The same would be the position in the case of
defendants or respondents having similar rights
contesting the claims against them.
The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961
18. This Court while adverting to Order 22 Rule 4 CPC against
the other respondent in State of Punjab Vs. Nathu Ram AIR
1962 SC 89 observed as under:
11
“6. The question whether a Court can deal with
such matters or not, will depend on the facts of each
case and therefore no exhaustive statement can be
made about the circumstances when this is possible or
is not possible. It may, however, be stated that
ordinarily the considerations which weigh with the
Court in deciding upon this question are whether the
appeal between the appellants and the respondents
other than the deceased can be said to be properly
constituted or can be said to have all the necessary
parties for the decision of the controversy before the
Court. The test to determine this has been described in
diverse forms. Courts will not proceed with an appeal
Budh Ram & Ors vs Bansi & Ors on 5 August, 2010
20. It was further considered in Budh Ram and Others Vs.
Bansi and Others 2010(11) SCC 476 and the principle,
13
therefore, emerges is to test whether the judgment/decree passed
in the proceedings visàvis the remaining parties would suffer
from the vice of contradictory or inconsistent decrees inasmuch
as the two decrees are incapable of enforcement or would be
mutually selfdestructive and that the enforcement of one would
negate or render impossible the enforcement of the other.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
1