Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Sri V Chandrashekaraiah S/O Late ... vs Smt Puttamma W/O Late Veeranna on 30 August, 2010 cites

Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs Jai Prakash University And Ors on 24 July, 2001

6. While on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5, who has conteste:'d_l'~~this petition, would assert that the suit indeed been gifted to respondent'No.5"'[§y:§~.;spo_iide,n'tVV' No.1 and the trial court has, in ;%aeic¢gfi:t:p;:nleof transfer, allowed the application the.said"3re'spondent' is not a stranger who has acquired title to theuésandiel passed in respect of theLVVsvVf._1it her interest, there to be made a party to the application has been »{l'l€I'€ is no substance in the writ. petition; VThe"'learned Counsel places reliance on v ., ptlielifoi-.lioWixfig j H liiarepnvdranath Shetty and Another Vs. Sri P.S. lemma mac Pisey and Others ILR 2009 KAR 2870 n2.h"lZ)éhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash University " "and others 2001 AIR scw 2574.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 319 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Phoolchand And Anr vs Gopal Lal on 10 March, 1967

and this Court heid that Order XXII Rule 10 CPQ, deals with the procedure in case of assignment befo1~*e"a's'fina1 order in a suit and that, in the case of an creation or devoiution of any. ._inte'rest"*duringr_ thek pendency of the suit, the suit lesave' be continued by or against person to or 'eporr iévhorn' such interest has conie orV.rdestfo1Ved..'and'eventiassurning that the petitioners were not proper parties, they -¢j:V0:1.1Id assignees under Order is Even though an 1 Rule 10 CPC, the labeilingss and the Court could always treat the eerrre as are under Order xxn Rule 10(1) cpc. V or consideration therefore, according to'--.this.-Coifut, was that it was to be addressed whether the 1"eiief couid be granted in favour of the applicant and would be a question which could be gone into during the course of the proceedings and cannot be said 5 at the very threshold and this Court also relied upon the judgment in Phoolchand Vs. Gopal La}. AiR."~ll£_36_'1"~».v{SC 1470, to hold that insofar as partit_ion concerned, if an event transpi_res._afte.i=? the'<p~rel'irninaryll't. decree which necessitates a rnodiiiication'-olf the the Court can and shoulld.V:vg:lir1._odifAy' the_vsh:ai*es"'allotted}V but this can only b.€...do'n&e;"'so'g':'long as lithe. final decree has not been passed and vtlie-.petitioners were entitled to, be '-_~ and necessary parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 165 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

A Ravishankar Shetty vs Suresh Chadaga P S on 27 February, 2009

6. While on the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.5, who has conteste:'d_l'~~this petition, would assert that the suit indeed been gifted to respondent'No.5"'[§y:§~.;spo_iide,n'tVV' No.1 and the trial court has, in ;%aeic¢gfi:t:p;:nleof transfer, allowed the application the.said"3re'spondent' is not a stranger who has acquired title to theuésandiel passed in respect of theLVVsvVf._1it her interest, there to be made a party to the application has been »{l'l€I'€ is no substance in the writ. petition; VThe"'learned Counsel places reliance on v ., ptlielifoi-.lioWixfig j H liiarepnvdranath Shetty and Another Vs. Sri P.S. lemma mac Pisey and Others ILR 2009 KAR 2870 n2.h"lZ)éhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs Jai Prakash University " "and others 2001 AIR scw 2574.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - M Chellur - Full Document
1