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

1967 Supreme(Guj) 43

V.B.RAJU
ALARAKHA HASSAN – Appellant
Versus
AMIR HUSSAIN ALADMIYA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.P.JOSHI, N.M.THAKOR

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) IN a representative suit Filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1961 two persons namely Kasambhai and Hyderkhan gave an application Ex. 127 under sub-rule (2) of Order 1 Rule 8 C. P. Code stating that they want to be added as parties. At that time they were not added as plaintiffs. Subsequently these two persons and two other persons who made application (Ex. 131) were ordered to be substituted as plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiffs. That order is now challenged in revision.

( 2 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Order 1 Rule 8 G. P Code provides. (2) Any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended under sub-rule (1) may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. Therefore the two persons who gave the application (Ex. 127) had a right to be made parties to the suit. They should be added but not substituted for others

( 3 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. Code reads as under :-10 (2) The Court may at any state of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plain





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