Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)
Chitralekha Builders And Smt. Nina Anil ... vs G.I.C. Employees Sonal Vihar Co-Op. ... on 19 August, 2005 cites

Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005

43. As a matter of fact, the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Amit Kumar (supra) has diluted the test to be applied while adding the person as a party to the proceedings. The Court went to the extent of saying that the power of the Court to add party cannot depend solely on the question whether he has interest in the suit property what is required to be seen is whether he would suffer any prejudice, if he is not allowed to participate in the suit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 394 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962

55. Having said so, one has to consider the reliefs claimed in the suit by the plaintiff -G.I.C. Society. The plaintiff is claiming specific performance of contract in respect of immovable property viz. suit property; wherein appellants are claiming interest based on documentary evidence, existence and execution of which is not in dispute. The discretion as given in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of C.P.C. coupled with the observations made in the case of Udit Narian Singh Malpahria (supra), would give the sufficient idea regarding meaning of the term "necessary and proper parties". Reverting back to the facts of the present case on hand, it is clear that the suit property is at stake. Appellants are claiming interest in the suit property. Plaintiff -G.I.C. Society has given no objection for impleadment of the appellants as party defendants. Mrs. Kusum could not demonstrate any prejudice to her interest, if chamber summons of the appellants is allowed. Thus, considering the scope of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of C.P.C., in our view, appellants deserve to be added as party defendants as they ought to have been joined as plaintiffs or, at any rate, as defendants in the suit. Even in the changed scenario, without their presence the issues involved in the suit cannot be completely and effectually adjudicated upon. The interest of the appellants, if any, is bound to be affected in the event they are not allowed to be party to the suit. The appellants are entitled to defend suit. As a matter of fact this is a fit case for exercise of discretion by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of C.P.C. However, in view of amendment to the chamber summons and invocation of powers of this Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2), it is not necessary to exercise that power because the same purpose is being served by allowing it in exercise of that powers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 470 - Full Document
1   2 Next