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

2025 Supreme(SC) 1309

M. M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL
N. Mohanasundaram – Appellant
Versus
K. M. Vinothan – Respondent


Table of Content
1. appellant's application to join as defendant. (Para 2)
2. court's discretion in necessary party determination. (Para 3 , 4)
3. restoration of trial court's order. (Para 5)
4. appeal allowed and issues left open. (Para 6)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case where the appellant had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the CPC) praying to be impleaded as defendant No.2, in a suit for partition and separate possession, filed by respondent No.1 herein. While the Trial Court allowed the said application, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment, has set aside the order of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us.

3. We have perused the impugned judgment. What is required to be considered while dealing with an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, is as to whether a party is a necessary and proper party for adjudication. Discretion is given to the Court to decide the said fact, for which even an application is not required. In other words, the discretion given is to facilitate the Court to arrive at the correct decision.

4. The High Court, in our view, has gone into the merits of

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