Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)
Sh. Virender Kumar & Ors. vs . Sangam Supari Co. & Ors. on 25 May, 2022 cites

Kasturi Bai And Ors vs Anguri Chaudhary on 5 February, 2003

16 In view of Ratio of the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi Bai & Ors. vs. Anguri Chaudhary, (2003) 3 SCC 225 and by the Hon'ble High Court in Shyam Pahwa Vs Narendra Pratap Bhatia, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7970, It is no longer res integra that the courts are duty bound to conduct an inquiry in the suit instituted by the next friend. In the present case the Ld. Trial Court has issued summons in the suit instituted on behalf of the plaintiff through next friend without conducting any inquiry, which order was never challenged by either of the parties. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants has failed to apprise this court as to how the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court issuing summons of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Further even in the present appeal no such ground has been urged on behalf of the appellants and the same has been raised for the first-time during argument with a view to reagitate the lost cause afresh after passage of almost 35 years. The suit was filed by the son of the plaintiff as next friend of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an application u/s 151 CPC on 08/12/1988, that he has recovered from the unsoundness of mind and no such issue was raised in the application. Thereafter on the death of the Plaintiff, his LRs including his son, who filed the suit as next friend were brought on record.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Shyama Pahwa vs Narendra Pratap Bhalla & Ors. on 13 March, 2018

16 In view of Ratio of the Judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kasturi Bai & Ors. vs. Anguri Chaudhary, (2003) 3 SCC 225 and by the Hon'ble High Court in Shyam Pahwa Vs Narendra Pratap Bhatia, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7970, It is no longer res integra that the courts are duty bound to conduct an inquiry in the suit instituted by the next friend. In the present case the Ld. Trial Court has issued summons in the suit instituted on behalf of the plaintiff through next friend without conducting any inquiry, which order was never challenged by either of the parties. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellants has failed to apprise this court as to how the appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court issuing summons of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Further even in the present appeal no such ground has been urged on behalf of the appellants and the same has been raised for the first-time during argument with a view to reagitate the lost cause afresh after passage of almost 35 years. The suit was filed by the son of the plaintiff as next friend of the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed an application u/s 151 CPC on 08/12/1988, that he has recovered from the unsoundness of mind and no such issue was raised in the application. Thereafter on the death of the Plaintiff, his LRs including his son, who filed the suit as next friend were brought on record.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Makhan Lal Bangal vs Manas Bhunia & Ors on 3 January, 2000

13 Perusal of the order dated 19/11/2013 passed by the Ld. Trial Court shows that leave was granted to the plaintiff to amend the plaint to incorporate and seek the relief of possession. However, the amended plaint filed by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff failed to amend the prayer clause and no relief with regard to possession was incorporated in terms of order dated 19/11/2013. The plaintiff thus failed to amend the plaint. Further when the issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court, the plaintiff did not raise the issue of possession. Therefore, the non-framing of issue with regard to possession by the Ld. Trial Court is due to the failure of the plaintiff to amend the plaint in terms of order dated 19/11/2013. Further, as rightly argued by the respondents that the relief of possession is a consequential relief in the suit for declaration and in the present case, the trial court has already determined the issue of declaration against the plaintiff and therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff/appellants by non-framing of issue with regard to relief of possession. Reliance is placed by the appellants for the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia and Ors, AIR 2001 SC 490. The ratio of the judgment is not applicable in the present case as in the present case the plaintiff failed to amend the suit in terms of order dated 19/11/2013 and no relief for possession was sought in the amended plaint. The arguments of the appellants that the cause title of the suit was amended is of no avail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 78 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1