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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 1270

P.SATHASIVAM
Bakthavatsalam – Appellant
Versus
Anjapuli and others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:Mr.R. Muralidharan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.R. Gururaj, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 to 6.

Judgment :-

1. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order o the learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, dated 1.2.2000, in an unnumbered application in O.S.No.160 of 1996.

2. The petitioner herein initially filed a suit for partition at Sub-Court, Cuddalore on 17.2.1994. Thereafter, the same was transferred to District Munsif Court, Cuddalore and numbered as O.S.No.160 of 1996 and a preliminary decree was passed on 6.8.1998. It is is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile the respondents have sold certain suit properties to various third parties. He has also filed an application for passing a final decree. Accordingly, he has filed the present application under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C for impleading respondents 4 to 6 to bring as Defendants 4 to 6 in the suit. The learned Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore, after holding that after passing of the preliminary decree on 6.8.1998 and at the stage of passing of final decree the petitioner has filed the present application for impleadment of certain parties who are said to have purchased certain items of suit properties, they are neither necessary nor proper parties, dismissed the said application, h

















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