Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal vs Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 4 March, 1992
In Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay it is further held that;
Nachammal vs Lavangammal on 3 April, 2006
5. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also drew the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by this Court in Nachammal vs. Lavangammal reported in 2006(3)CTC 543 wherein this Court has held that any alienation of property subsequent to filing of suit is hit by doctrine of lispendes and any decree passed in respect of any property is certainly binding on subsequent purchaser. While confirming the order passed by the court below under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, this Court, dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the subsequent purchaser. However, in the decision referred to above, it has been categorically held that only necessary and proper parties alone could be impleaded in the suit. Learned counsel further contended that the contesting second respondent is a senior citizen hence, if the revision petition is allowed, it would cause further delay and the second respondent would be prejudiced.
Section 53 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
K.P.Rajendran vs N.R.Nachimuthu on 1 November, 2010
Similarly, this Court in the decision in K.P.Rajendran and another vs. N.R.Nachimuthu and Others reported in 2010(5) L.W.905 has held that when the parties sought to be impleaded is not claiming any independent title and they claim title through one of the parties, they are necessary and proper parties and they shall be impleaded as parties to the suit for proper adjudication.
Savita Devi vs District Judge, Gorakhpur And Others on 18 February, 1999
In the decision in Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur and Others reported in 1999(2)SCC 577 in paragraph 9 it has been held as follows:
Razia Begum vs Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others on 23 May, 1958
It was also held that though prevention of actions cannot be said to be the main object of the Rule, it is a desirable consequence of the Rule. The test for impleading parties prescribed in Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum that the person concerned must have a direct interest in the action and that was reiterated by the Bench.
Kandasamy And Venkatesh vs M. Palanisamy, M. Sarojini And ... on 16 June, 2005
9.This Court in Kandasamy and Others vs. M.Palanisamy and Others reported in 2005(3) MLJ 306 has held thus:
1