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

1962 Supreme(Mad) 325

S.RAMACHANDRA.IYER
Pappa Ammal alias Pappayammal – Appellant
Versus
Pandian Bank Ltd. , by its authorised Agent – Respondent


Advocates:
Sivagnam for V. V. Raghavan, for Petitioner.
Sivamani for M. Natesan, for Respondent.

ORDER.-The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty to be impleaded as a party to O.S. No. 79 of 1961, and this Civil Revision Petition is directed against that order. Unfortunately, in making the order, the learned Subordinate Judge did not decide the question whether the widow of the deceased Manicka Chetty was either a necessary party or even a proper party.

But he contented himself with saying that, if it were to be found in the suit that she was not a necessary party, the suit would have to be dismissed against her. This is a very unsatisfactory way of disposing of the matter. Before a Court impleads a particular person as a party to a suit, it is its duty to find even at that stage whether that party is a necessary party or a proper party. It will be only abdicating its duty if it were to reserve that question to a later stage, impleading the person as a party and exposing him to all the travails of a litigation. It is poor satisfaction to a person, who is neither a necessary nor a proper party, to be told that she will first be impleaded, and, later on, after she has gone through the ordeal of a suit, the suit will be dismissed against he



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