Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.49 seconds)Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004
Furthermore, in the case of
V.Narayana Reddy (supra 12) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relied on the judgment rendered in Kesari Goutham Reddy
v. Velpula John Victor Macaulay 13, in Raj Kumar
(supra 7) and Amit Kumar Shaw (supra 11) to hold that a
purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary
party to safeguard their interests. In essence, it was
recognized that a purchaser pendente lite has a legitimate
stake in the outcome of the proceedings and should be
permitted to participate in the suit to protect their rights
and the said approach promotes justice and ensures that all
parties with a legitimate interest in the dispute, are heard.
Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
Furthermore, in the case of
V.Narayana Reddy (supra 12) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relied on the judgment rendered in Kesari Goutham Reddy
v. Velpula John Victor Macaulay 13, in Raj Kumar
(supra 7) and Amit Kumar Shaw (supra 11) to hold that a
purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary
party to safeguard their interests. In essence, it was
recognized that a purchaser pendente lite has a legitimate
stake in the outcome of the proceedings and should be
permitted to participate in the suit to protect their rights
and the said approach promotes justice and ensures that all
parties with a legitimate interest in the dispute, are heard.
Kesari Goutham Reddy vs Velpula John Victor Macaulay And Anr. on 11 June, 2007
Furthermore, in the case of
V.Narayana Reddy (supra 12) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
relied on the judgment rendered in Kesari Goutham Reddy
v. Velpula John Victor Macaulay 13, in Raj Kumar
(supra 7) and Amit Kumar Shaw (supra 11) to hold that a
purchaser pendente lite can be impleaded as a necessary
party to safeguard their interests. In essence, it was
recognized that a purchaser pendente lite has a legitimate
stake in the outcome of the proceedings and should be
permitted to participate in the suit to protect their rights
and the said approach promotes justice and ensures that all
parties with a legitimate interest in the dispute, are heard.
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court considered
the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and the
principles laid down in various judgments, such as,
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay 1, Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal 2, Amit
Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon 3, Kunna Ramulu v.
1
(1992) 2 SCC 524
2
2004) 2 SCC 601
3
(2005) 11 SCC 403
3
SKS,J
CRP.Nos.2527/2022 & 429/2023
Kunna Annapurnamma 4, Pannala Renuka v. Kavali
(Rajumouni) Venkataiah 5 and held that the respondents
herein were necessary parties to the suit and that their
impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
allowed the petition, directing them to pay costs of
Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners herein and to carry out
amendments and file a neat copy of the plaint within 14
days.
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Pannala Renuka And Anr. vs Kavali (Rajumouni) Venkataiah And Ors. on 1 September, 2006
4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court considered
the provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC and the
principles laid down in various judgments, such as,
Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay 1, Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal 2, Amit
Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon 3, Kunna Ramulu v.
1
(1992) 2 SCC 524
2
2004) 2 SCC 601
3
(2005) 11 SCC 403
3
SKS,J
CRP.Nos.2527/2022 & 429/2023
Kunna Annapurnamma 4, Pannala Renuka v. Kavali
(Rajumouni) Venkataiah 5 and held that the respondents
herein were necessary parties to the suit and that their
impleadment would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
allowed the petition, directing them to pay costs of
Rs.2,000/- to the petitioners herein and to carry out
amendments and file a neat copy of the plaint within 14
days.
V.N. Krishna Murthy vs Sri Ravikumar on 21 August, 2020
10. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
admittedly, the respondents are subsequent purchasers of
the suit schedule property. The trial Court while considering
the judgments passed in the cases of V.N. Krishna Murthy
(supra 6) and Raj Kumar (supra 7) allowed the orders under
challenge, specifically observing that leave to appeal should
be granted to the respondents herein, them being the lis
pendent transferees, having been bound by the decree
passed and that they have got equally right to question the
validity of the order, and are entitled to seek leave to prefer
the appeal against the order.
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Pranay Sethi And Others on 22 June, 2022
He also relied on the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others 9. Furthermore, in the case of Mohd. Sharfuddin Vs.
8
2012 SCC OnLine Mad 3850
9
2017 16 SCC 680
7
SKS,J
CRP.Nos.2527/2022 & 429/2023
Mohd. Jamal and Others 10 and the relevant paragraph
Nos.19 to 21 read as under:
Ganesh Sakharam Saraf vs Narayan Shriram Mulaye on 14 April, 1931
In Ganesh v. Narayan, AIR 1931 Bom. 484,
a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held
that "a decree for permanent injunction obtained
against a father in Hindu Joint family can be
executed against the son."