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

2017 Supreme(Raj) 2338

DINESH MEHTA
PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO. 2, UAIPUR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajat Dave, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.9.2016, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby the application seeking impleadment filed by respondent No. 14 Deva and respondent No. 15 Shankar has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that during the pendency of the said proceedings, the property has been purchased by the applicants Deva & Shankar (respondents No. 14 & 15) by way of registered sale deed dated 13.6.2013. The said purchasers being bona fide purchasers, have moved an application seeking impleadment under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC.

3. Learned Court below while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thomson Press (India) Ltd. v. Nanak Builders and Investors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 SC 2389 has allowed the said application and impleaded the applicants as respondents being No. 14 and 15 to the suit.

4. Mr. Rajat Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a judgment rendered in the case of Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. Tosh Apartment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. reported in AIR 2012 SC 2925 and based on the principles enunciated therein, conten





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