Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Krimm Business Solutions Pvt Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Jagdish Prasad Aggarwal (Since Deceased), Through Lrs – Respondent
ORDER :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The instant petition under Section 115 the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking setting aside of the order dated 8th April, 2024 (hereinafter “impugned order”) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in civil suit bearing CS DJ No. 16606/2016.
2. The respondent No.1 (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) had filed a civil suit against one Mr.Surinder Kumar Gupta and the petitioner company (defendants No.1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court respectively) seeking the relief of declaration of sale deed dated 7th May, 2015 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 as null and void. In the said civil suit, the defendant No.2, i.e., the petitioner herein had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds. Furthermore, the respondent No.1, i.e., the plaintiff had also filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.
3. Vide the impugned order dated 8th April, 2024, the learned Trial Court dismissed petitioner’s application filed un
The court affirmed that a suit for declaration does not necessitate all co-owners as parties if their interests don't impede the plaintiff's claims.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing for the admission of necessary documents and clarifying criteria for adding parties.
Addition of the proposed defendant would result into causing serious prejudice to the plaintiff and the substitution or the addition of a new cause of action would only widen the issue which requires....
A co-owner can maintain a suit for possession against a tenant without joining other co-owners, affirming that non-joinder does not render the suit bad in law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the impleadment of a party is not necessary if no legal right has been created in their favor, and their presence is not required to effective....
A plaintiff's failure to seek explicit title declaration does not render the suit unmaintainable if sufficient evidence of ownership exists, especially when the trial is ongoing.
A party to a contract for sale is a necessary party in a suit for specific performance, while a person claiming adversely is not; the court recognized the petitioner as a proper party for effective a....
Non-joinder of a necessary party is a ground to reverse or vary a decree in appeal, and the court may order a remand to afford an opportunity to implead the necessary party.
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
