Subhash Arora vs Kishan Sharma

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Subhash Arora – Appellant
Versus
Kishan Sharma – Respondent

Table of Content
1. factual background of auction and suit (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 10 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
2. plaintiff's arguments against impleadment (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 13)
3. court's observations on necessary parties and specific performance (Para 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
4. ruling on impleadment application (Para 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A.7727/2020 (For Impleadment)

1. Kalyani (India) Private Ltd. has filed an application under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") to be impleaded as a party in the present Suit for Specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 26.03.2012 between the plaintiff and the defendant.

2. The facts in brief as narrated in the application are that the residential property consisting of Basement, Ground Floor and First Floor built on Plot No.38, Block-B, Masjid Moth, Panchsheel Enclave, Chirag Delhi-110017 measuring 216 Sq. Metres (hereinafter referred to as "suit property"), of which the defendant was the owner, had been mortgaged with Punjab National Bank by the original owners/ allottees. On account o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNASubhash Arora – AppellantVersusKishan Sharma – Respondent

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
Subhash Arora – Appellant
Versus
Kishan Sharma – Respondent