SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(SC) 457

R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR
SUBODH KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
ALPANA GUPTA – Respondent


ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The parties in the suit are related with each other. One Subodh Kumar Gupta is already a party to the suit. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) at one stage moved an application proposing to bring on record as defendants his wife, three daughters and the HUF of Subodh Kumar Gupta. At a later stage the application was not pressed and hence was dismissed. Subsequently, Subodh Kumar Gupta himself moved an application for impleadment of his wife, daughters and the HUF as defendants. This prayer was allowed by the trial court. In a petition preferred by the plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court interfered with the order of the trial court and set aside the order of impleadment.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained. The trial court had exercised its discretion and assigned reasons for permitting impleadment. In exercise of limited jurisdiction conferred by Article 227, the High Court should not have interfered with the discretion exercised by the trial court. Even otherwise, having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top