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

1974 Supreme(All) 47

HARISWARUP, GOPINATH
Khalil Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur – Respondent


Advocates:
V.B. Khare, for Petitioners; Standing Counsel, for Opposite Party.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This petition has been filed against the order of the trial court impleading respondents Nos. 10 and 11 as defendants in the suit and the order passed in revision filed by the petitioners against that order. The parties were impleaded by the trial court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the revisional Court held that the trial court had committed no error of jurisdiction in directing the impleadment.

2. The suit was one for redemption of mortgage. One of the mortgagees had died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs had not been impleaded by the plaintiff who was seeking redemption. The heirs of the mortgagee were admittedly necessary parties in the suit for decision of the controversy. An application had been moved by the plaintiff beyond time for impleading the heirs under Order 22, Rule 4, C.P.C. but that application was dismissed as time barred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the application under Order 22, Rule 4 is dismissed, the bar of Order 22, Rule 9 comes in the way even in the impleadment of parties by the court under Order 1, Rule 10(2) C.P.C. We are unable to accept this contention. Order 22









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