Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
11. The application for impleadment is for impleading the predecessor in title. Therefore, on facts it cannot be stated that the proposed parties are not necessary parties to the suit. Considering the case pleaded by both parties, the proposed defendants are not only necessary parties but proper parties, so that the Court would be in a position to completely and effectively adjudicate on all the issues involved in the suit. Therefore, the order of the Court below in rejecting the application for impleadment is not tenable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, (1992) 2 SCC 524, considered the object of Order 1, Rule 10 (2) CPC and held as follows:-
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sivaraman @ Harikrishnan, S/O. Late ... vs Rajeswari @ Shanthi, W/O. Late ... on 19 July, 2005
5. Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the finding of the trial Court that by impleading the vendors as defendants in the Suit would enlarge the scope of the Suit besides, protracting the issue, is unacceptable and the trial Court ought to have considered the aspect that the proposed parties are proper and necessary parties for the full and complete adjudication of the lis. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in 2005 3 CTC 733 [SIVARAMAN @ HARIKRISHNAN Vs. RAJESWARI @ SHANTHI] in support of his contention.
1