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

1942 Supreme(Mad) 435

BYERS
Malireddi Venkatapathi – Appellant
Versus
Malireddi Veerayya – Respondent


ORDER

Byers, J.

1. The petitioners are the decree-holders in Original Suit No. 56 of 1940 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Cocanada, and against the decree an appeal has been filed in this Court by some of the defendants. The sixteenth defendant in the lower Court is not a party to the appeal but the decree-holders seek to file a memorandum of cross-objections against him under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The sixteenth defendant objects on two grounds, firstly, that it is not open to the respondents in the appeal, to file a memorandum of cross-objections against a person who is not a party in the appeal, and secondly, that it is not open to the Court to add him as a party to the appeal merely for this purpose.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioners relies on the decision in Ponnuswami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudali (1920) 11 L.W. 602 in which it was held that the appellate Court has jurisdiction under Order 41, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to add a defendant as a party to an appeal even though the defendant may not be interested in the original appeal. The facts in that case were that defendants 3 and 4 in the suit in the trial Court had a








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