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

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

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