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

1992 Supreme(Del) 195

G.C.MITTAL, SAT PAL
MOHINDER KAUR – Appellant
Versus
SUDARSHAN KRISHNAMURTHY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.MARVAHA, Naresh Thanai, Ravinder Sethi, S.K.KHANNA, S.N.MARVAH

Gokal Chand Mital, CJ. (Oral)

( 1 ) ADMIT. Shri Panna Lal Suri is the owner of the land in dispute about which there was an agreement of sale with Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murthy and Dr. B. S. Krishna Murthy. Smt. Sudershan Krishna Murhty and Dr. B. s. Krishna Murthy filed a suit for specific performance against Shri Panna Lal Suri, but while the suit for specific performance was pending Shri Panna Lal Suri agreed to sell 7/8th share of the same property to Smt. Mohinder Kaur. Soon after the agreement was entered into by Shri Pana Lal Suri in favour of Smt. Mohinder Kaur, Smt. Mohinder Kaur moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order 22 Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading her as a co-defendant in suit to safe-guard her interest on the basis of the agreement of sale REFERRED TO to above. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff and a Learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 29th July, 1991 dismissed the application saying that she was neither necessary nor proper party for the suit. Reliance was made to Narayan Chandra Garai vs. Matri Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. , AIR 1974 Calcutta 358 in taking the view.

"on a consideration of t




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