Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Narayan Chandra Garai And Ors. vs Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. on 14 December, 1973
A Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Narayan Chandra Garai & Ors. v. Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd., and Anr., has considered the same and commented on it. In the case before the Calcutta High Court, a petition was moved by one Smt. Annapurna De to be added as party-defendant and for vacating the injunction. After considering the facts on record the Court held that the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The Court thereafter examined whether the injunction could be dissolved at the instance of the party who was not made a party to the proceedings. The Court observed that the petition cannot be treated as a proceeding in the nature of pro inter-esse-suo.
Central Bank Of India vs Srish Chandra Guha And Anr. on 15 November, 1971
This expression came up for consideration, as already referred to, before the Calcutta High Court in Central Bank of India (supra). The learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court has observed as under :-
Sreedhar Chaudhury vs Nilmoni Chaudhury And Ors. on 30 July, 1924
It is, therefore, clear that to a limited extent in a case where a third party claims right, title and interest he can move the Court even if not a party to the proceedings and the Court in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings may examine such person as to title to the property. Before the Calcutta High Court apart from examining the petitioner therein, the petitioners sought to examine other witnesses in a case where Receiver had taken possession. The learned Judge as already reproduced above, has held that a summary procedure in the form of an application in pro inter-esse suo can be allowed to be resorted to only by a person who shows the
utmost diligence Sreedhar Chaudhury v. Nilmoni Chaudhury. The Court held that the applicant cannot in such a proceeding examine some other person with regard to that person's right or title in the goods or property. It is further observed that the examination pro inter-esse-suo is never ordered unless the applicant shows diligence. In the instant case, as may be seen, the applicant does not seek to be examined as to his right, interest or title to the property. That he has none. All that he claims is that the shares were sold when he acted as a broker. That transaction gives him a right to move the Court. Even considering what has been set out by the Calcutta High Court, with which I am respectfully in agreement, it will be clear that the applicant has not shown any right, title or interest in the property which is the subject- matter of the suit and, therefore, even if he had applied to be examined, that could not have been done as the applicant had no right, title or interest in the property. The injunction was granted in the year 1998.
1