Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.62 seconds)
Binod Kumar Singh vs Bhola Roy And Ors on 25 February, 2020 cites

R. Dhanasundari @ R. Rajeswari vs A.N. Umakanth And Ors on 6 March, 2019

13. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Board has rightly placed reliance on Supreme Courts decision in case of R. Dhansundari @ R. Rajeswari Vs. A.N. Umakanth & Ors. (supra). In the said case, the plaintiff had filed the suit as Power of Attorney Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 13/17 holder of the plaintiff and when the Power was enforced, the power given to him was cancelled. When the power was enforced, the plaintiff had sold most of the suit items. The purchasers, thereafter, moved an application to implead themselves as plaintiffs which was allowed. Later, the plaintiffs had filed an application to transpose some of the plaintiffs as defendants which was also allowed. After the trial had commenced and the plaintiff's witnesses had been examined, the plaintiff and one of the defendants entered into compromise and filed a memo stating that the suit was not to be pressed as settled out of the Court. It was, in such circumstance, that an application was made on behalf of other contesting defendants for their transposition on the plea that the withdrawal was collusive in nature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 24 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Thakur Chaudhry And Ors. vs Brahmdeo Chaudhry And Ors. on 16 February, 1978

In case of Thakur Chaudhry and Others Vs. Brahmdeo Chaudhry and Others (supra), this Court observed, inter alia, in paragraph-7 that a person can be added as a co-plaintiff when he can adopt the plaintiff's case. Persons having conflicting cases cannot be made co-plaintiffs and if the plaintiff and the defendant have conflicting cases, the question of making the defendant a plaintiff and the plaintiff a defendant does not arise unless Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 11/17 such a contingency occurs when, for instance, "the plaiantiff is withdrawing from the suit".
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

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

5. Mr. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has at the very outset submitted that the Secretary of the Board is no legal entity and there is no decision of the Board within the meaning of the Act which could be the basis for the claim of defendant No. 4 to be transposed as plaintiff. He has submitted, applying the doctrine of dominus litis that a plaintiff is the master of his case and he is at liberty to withdraw his suit at any stage. According to him, in the nature of dispute, defendant No. 4 could not have been transposed as a plaintiff as in the plaint, the plaintiffs have been claiming their title which relief the Board cannot claim. It is his submission accordingly that in no case, defendant No. 4 could have been transposed as a plaintiff. He has placed reliance on decisions of this Court in case of Thakur Chaudhry and Others Vs. Brahmdeo Patna High Court CWJC No.4303 of 2011 dt.25-02-2020 5/17 Chaudhry and Others (AIR 1979 Patna 58) with special reference to paragraphs 7 and 9 thereof and Basudeb Narayan Singh and others Vs. Shesh Narayan Singh and others (AIR 1979 Patna 73).
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 Next