Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.48 seconds)Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr vs Farida Khatoon & Anr on 13 April, 2005
We have also noticed that in Amit
Kumar Shaw & Anr. v. Farida Khatoon & Anr. (supra), this Court has
held that it is not necessary to make a detailed enquiry at the stage of
granting leave under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC. The Court at that
point of time has to be prima facie satisfied for exercising its
discretion in granting leave for continuing the suit by or against the
person on whom the interest has devolved by assignment or
devolution. The question about the existence and validity of the
assignment or devolution can be considered at the final hearing of the
proceedings.
Raj Kumar vs Sardari Lal on 20 January, 2004
3. We have duly taken note of these decisions and it appears to us that
in Raj Kumar v. Sardari Lal (supra), this Court has held that in case of
an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the
pendency of any suit, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC confers a discretion on
the Court hearing the suit to grant leave to the person in or upon
whom such interest has come to vest or devolve to be brought on
record. Bringing of a lis pendens transferee on record is not as of right
but is the discretion of the Court.
Jineshwardas (Dead) Through L. Rs. & Ors vs Smt. Jagrani & Anr on 26 September, 2003
In Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Bibi Zubaida
3
Khatoon (supra) and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), this Court
though dealt with impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the said decisions do not
apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the judgments cited by Mr.
Jain, in our opinion, cannot help him in the attendant facts and
circumstances.
Thomson Press (India) Ltd vs Nanak Builders & Investrs.P.Ltd & Ors on 21 February, 2013
In Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Bibi Zubaida
3
Khatoon (supra) and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), this Court
though dealt with impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the said decisions do not
apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the judgments cited by Mr.
Jain, in our opinion, cannot help him in the attendant facts and
circumstances.
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001
In support of his
submission he relied on the decisions of this Court in Govt. of Orissa
v. Ashok Transport Agency & Ors., [2005 (1) SCC 536] and
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors.,
[2001 (6) SCC 534], and pointed out that under Order 22 Rule 10, the
right of the assignee and/or the successor in interest will continue
when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of
a suit. The suit can, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against
the persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitles
the person who has acquired interest in the subject matter of a
litigation by assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente
4
lite or any other person in interest, to apply to the Court for leave to
continue the suit.
Baijnath Ram And Ors. vs Mt. Tunkowati Kuer And Ors. on 15 February, 1962
6. We have further noticed that in Baijnath Ram & Ors. v. Tunkowati
Kuer & Ors. (AIR 1962 PATNA 285), Full Bench of the Patna High
Court has held:
Section 52 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt.Ltd.& Ors vs Tosh Apartments Pvt.Ltd.& Ors on 21 August, 2012
In Vidur Impex & Traders Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Bibi Zubaida
3
Khatoon (supra) and Thomson Press (India) Ltd. (supra), this Court
though dealt with impleadment under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act the said decisions do not
apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, the judgments cited by Mr.
Jain, in our opinion, cannot help him in the attendant facts and
circumstances.
Government Of Orissa vs M/S Ashok Transport Agency And Ors on 5 November, 2004
In support of his
submission he relied on the decisions of this Court in Govt. of Orissa
v. Ashok Transport Agency & Ors., [2005 (1) SCC 536] and
Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University and Ors.,
[2001 (6) SCC 534], and pointed out that under Order 22 Rule 10, the
right of the assignee and/or the successor in interest will continue
when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of
a suit. The suit can, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against
the persons upon whom such interest has devolved and this entitles
the person who has acquired interest in the subject matter of a
litigation by assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente
4
lite or any other person in interest, to apply to the Court for leave to
continue the suit.
1