Intervention in Appeal: Intervention in appeal against the dismissal of writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of those persons without there being any decision of High Court on their claim. Who may be joined as defendants. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding. Firmly embedded in the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of non-joinder effective keeps a check on the claims of a party from denying him the rights unless the necessary and proper persons are made parties to the suit. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 151, Order 1, Rule 10-- Impleading a party - Suit for possession by way of specific performance - During pendency of suit another agreement to sell executed by defendant in favour of petitioner - Application for impleadment of petitioner as party rightly allowed, as he is necessary party to the suit. He may collude with the Plaintiff.
Darshan Singh, a learned Judge has referred to the purpose of Order I, Rule 10 2 of the Code and laid down that addition of a party under the aforesaid provision can be done only in a pending suit and not in one where the defendant is dead. The mere pendency of a suit does not prevent one of the parties from dealing with the property constituting the subject-matter of the suit. Notice not necessary in case of Binding precedent: Supreme Court decision with regard to setting up of shrimp culture industry within prohibited area and in ecology fragile coastal area, was rendered after giving widest publicity. If it is not impleaded as party it is entitled to appeal or writ petition to assail the legality or correctness of enhanced of award. Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit— Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable : Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit. It was averred in the application that due to technical mistakes and errors made in the application, the same was withdrawn. Again in the case of Ramesh Chandra v.
The present applicant was neither a party before the Consolidation Officer nor before the Financial Commissioner. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. It is enough to mention some of them : Daniels v. Incidental proceedings are, however, taken recourse to in aid of the ultimate decision of the suit which would mean that any order passed in terms thereof, subject to the rules prescribed therefor, would have a bearing on the merit of the matter. .
The Court below dismissed the said petition. On the other hand, if a non-party makes an application seeking impleadment as a proper party and court finds him to be a proper party, the court may direct his addition as a defendant; but if the court finds that his addition will alter the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action, it may dismiss the application even if he is found to be a proper party, if it does not want to widen the scope of the specific performance suit; or the court may direct such applicant to be impleaded as a proper party, either unconditionally or subject to terms. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff. In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 2 of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. The demolition would materially affect the right, title and interest of the landlord even if the unauthorised construction was made with or without the consent of landlord or the lessor.
Every Interlocutory Application need not be tried as a suit under the guise of Sec. For any legal advice she can be contacted at sonia ssglawfirm. Vohra submits that in any case, the land would vest with the Consolidation Officer and not in Gaon Sabha. The said sub-rule is not about the right of a non-party to be impleaded as a party, but about the judicial discretion of the court to strike out or add parties at any stage of a proceeding. See Rule 57 which reads as follows:- 57. In 1977 a suit was filed by the Bank in Delhi High Court for recovery and redemption of the mortgaged property.
Our answer is in the affirmative. Where in a suit there are two or more defendants and causes of action, the suit will be bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, if different causes of action are joined against different defendants separately. However, the general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that is a judicial discretion of the court for proper adjudication, that can be exercised by the Court with an application or without an application, in order to meet the ends of justice. But so far as supplemental proceedings are concerned, the Court may have to pass a fresh order for their revival. His plea would be such as is appropriate to his character as legal representative. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that Respondents 3 to 5 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.
Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks about the doctrine of lis pendens. The court can, at any stage of the proceedings, either on an application made by the parties or otherwise, direct impleadment of any person as party, who ought to have joined as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the court is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. This is made clear in Section 95 of C. In State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Only as legal heirs of the deceased, K. In such circumstances, as contended by Mrs.
In exercising its judicial discretion under Order 1 Rule 10 2 of the Code, the court will of course act according to reason and fair play and not according to whims and caprice. He places reliance on Razia Begum Vs. Avoidance of collessive suit by a suo motu Addition of Parties by Court: The provisions of Order I, Rule 10 2 of the Code clearly empower the Court to implead any person as party suo motu, who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. January 08, 2004 Manmohan Sarin,J. On that basis, there was no cause for going into the question of interpretation of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the settlement deed. Placing reliance upon the orders issued by the Government in G.