Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)Manphool And Ors. vs Surja Ram And Ors. on 10 October, 1977
Learned counsel has further placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in Manphool and others vs. Surja Ram and
others AIR 1978, Pb and Haryana 216, wherein, it has been held as
under:-
Giani Ram & Ors vs Ramji Lal & Ors on 11 March, 1969
Be that as it may, nothing stated in
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Giani Ram's case
appears to me to lead to the conclusion that, if the
respondents, who are now contesting the petition, had
filed a suit in January, 1973, for the relief which was
claimed by Nathu, the same would have been within time.
On that ground alone, I hold that the defendant--
applicants have no prima facie case entitling them to be
transposed as plaintiffs. Even otherwise their applications
for transposition do not appear to me to be bona fide.
They had kept quiet from January, 1975 to October, 1975.
It was only after the plaintiff and the contesting defendant
to the suit had come to an amicable settlement and had
filed a compromise in Court that the applications for
transposition were made. It appears that a see-saw battle
had been going on between the plaintiff and the non-
contesting defendants to the suit inter se in which the
poor contesting defendants were the victims."
Mukesh Kumar And Ors vs Col. Harbans Waraich And Ors on 27 October, 1999
In support of his arguments, learned counsel has
placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Mukesh Kumar
and others vs. Col.Harbans Waraiah and others AIR 2000
Supreme Court 172, wherein, it has been held as under:-
Monghibai vs Cooverji Umersey on 2 May, 1939
(See: Monghibai v. Cooverji Umersry AIR
1939 PC 170), In a case where property was agreed to be
transferred to three co-promises and all the three filed a
suit for specific performance of the contract but only one
of them came to witness box in support of the claim, it
has been held that the other two co-promises would also
be entitled to a decree of specific performance.
Section 21 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Rohit Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar (Now State Of Jharkhand) & ... on 17 October, 2006
It appears that the
observations of the Calcutta High Court are based on the
peculiar facts of that case and are in any case at variance
with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
in Arjan Singh's case (AIR 1975 Punj & Har 184)(supra).
Devi Anita
I, therefore, hold, following the Division Bench Judgment
2014.02.19 10:31
I am approving this document
Chandigarh
Civil Revision No.517 of 2011 5
of this court, that no order of transposition as a plaintiff or
addition of a new plaintiff should ordinarily be passes
where it is prima facie patent that if the newly added party
or the transposed plaintiff had originally filed the suit on
the date when the suit in question was in fact filed, it
would have been doubtlessly barred by time.
Section 23 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Smt. Nirmala Bala Dasi And Anr. vs Sudarsan Jana And Ors. on 4 June, 1980
In
Nirmala Bala Dasi v, Suddarsan Jana AIR 1980 Cl 258, it
is held that one of the co-promises may sue for specific
performance making the other co-promises as
defendants. Judgment can be given in favour of the
persons interested whether they are joined as plaintiffs or
as defendants.
1