Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR
Prema Amritham Aiyer – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Vitthal Amarapurkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally
2. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the legality, propriety and correctness of common order passed by learned District Judge, Pune on 4th January 2024, whereby the Application preferred by the Petitioner (Exhibit “49”) and another Application preferred by Mr. Suresh Pandurang Ghodke (Exhibit “77”) to implead them as the parties to RCA No. 324 of 2012 in the capacity of legal representatives of Marybai Moses Peter, the deceased Respondent, came to be rejected.
3. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the background facts leading to this Petition can be summarized as under:
4. The Respondents-Plaintiffs had instituted a Suit for specific performance of a contract for sale executed by Marybai Peter, being Special Civil Suit No. 34 of 1984. The said Suit was partly decreed by Judgment and Order dated 20th September 1990. The Defendant carried the matter in Appeal before this Court in First Appeal No. 171 of 1992. In the said Appeal, the Respondent filed cross-objection. First Appeal No. 171 of 1992 came to be dismissed
Legal representation in appeals must be determined through proper inquiry and evidence, not conjecture, as mandated by procedural law.
Point of Law : Code of Civil Procedure enjoins various provisions only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and for adjudicating of related disputes in the same proceedings, the pa....
Procedural compliance is essential in determining legal representation before proceeding with appeals, especially when disputes arise over the validity of claims.
The amendment to Order XXII Rule 4 of the CPC aims to ensure the continuation and culmination of effective adjudication and to prevent the proceedings from coming to an end summarily due to the death....
The determination of legal representatives under Order XXII Rule 5 is a summary inquiry focused on representation in the suit, not on resolving inheritance rights.
Merely because the evidence of respondent/defendant and Prabhakar Rao (PW-2) was not repeated all over again, it cannot be held that the appellant/ plaintiff could be non-suited on this ground.
The Appellate Court has discretion in determining legal representation without remanding to the Trial Court, and the validity of a Will can be established through documentary evidence.
The main legal point established is that parties with the same interest in the subject matter are necessary parties and can be joined in the same litigation.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
