DELHI HIGH COURT
AMIT BANSAL
Archana Sethi – Appellant
Versus
Sachin Verma – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction under article 227 (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments against impleadment of petitioner no.2 (Para 2) |
| 3. respondent's justification for impleadment (Para 3) |
| 4. court's reasoning on the necessity of parties (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 5. order set aside and petition allowed (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 7th January, 2020 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi in CS No.880/2018, whereby the application filed by the respondent under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC) read with Order XVIII Rule 17 of the CPC has been allowed and petitioner no.2, Sh. Raj Kumar, has been impleaded as defendant no.2 in the suit.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that, (i) it has been noted in the order dated 4th June, 2018 passed by the Trial Court that liability to pay the suit amount was only of petitioner no.1 and that petitioner no.2 was impleaded only because he was the father of petitioner no.1; (ii) petitioner no.2 was deleted as a party on 4th June, 2018 and it was only o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.