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

1939 Supreme(Mad) 261

KUNHI RAMAN
Parasuram Mangacharyulu – Appellant
Versus
Parasuram Balarama Krishnamacharyulu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Kunhi Raman, J.

1. This is an application to revise an order made by the learned District Munsif of Tenali by which he -allowed a petition presented on behalf of the second respondent here that she may also be impleaded as a party to a suit O.S. No. 66 of 1935. The application was presented under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The relevant portion of the rule is worded as follows:

The Court may at any stage 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 person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually, and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

2. It is obvious from this provision that the Court in making an order directing a new party to be added must be satisfied either that that party ought to have been joined as plaintiff or defendant or that the presence of that party is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
















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