Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
The other decision relied upon is the decision in Ramesh
Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay reported in (1992) 2 SCC 525. It was held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that an application for addition of party
could be allowed if the court was of the view that the party
sought to be added was either a necessary party or a proper
party.
Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999
With regard to the decision in the matter of Savitri Devi
(supra), the addition of a stranger purchaser was allowed as
the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the view that as the stranger
purchaser could always proceed by filing a separate suit to
protect his title in respect of the suit property, in order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings, addition of party could be
allowed.
Kanaklata Das And Ors. vs Naba Kumar Das And Ors on 25 January, 2018
Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the petitioners submits that the law is well settled that in a
suit for eviction, a jural relationship subsists between the
landlord and the tenant. No other third party can be added to
the proceeding. The plaintiff as a dominus litis could not be
compelled to implead a third party, unless the third party can
prove that he or she was a necessary party and the suit could
not proceed in his or her absence. Reference is made to the
decision of Kanaklata Das & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Das & Ors.
reported in (2018) 2 SCC 352 and Jugal Denre vs. Goutam
Denre & Anr. reported in (2020) 2 ICC 29. A plain reading of
the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
indicates that a person could be joined as a party to the suit
either as a plaintiff or defendant, if in the discretion of the
court, the presence of such person was necessary in order to
4
enable the court to factually determine the issues involved in
the suit. In an eviction suit, the wife and the children of the
tenant are neither necessary parties nor proper parties as there
exists no jural relationship between the landlord and the
family of the tenant. It is only the tenant who is entitled to
contest the suit by setting up his defence.
Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo on 27 September, 1988
However, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Modula India vs.
Kamakshya Singh Deo, reported in 1989 AIR 162, held that in a
suit where the defence was struck off or was proceeding
undefended, the right of cross-examination of the defendant,
could not be denied. The defendant had a right to cross-
examine the plaintiff on the plaintiff's case without setting up
a defence or by making submissions beyond the plaint case.