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

2012 Supreme(MP) 338

SUJOY PAUL
Dilip Mahadik – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chandra Mahadik – Respondent


Advocates:
D. D. Bansal for petitioners; V. K. Bhardwaj with Vinod Bhargava for respondents.

ORDER

1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the singular question is whether the Court below has erred in disallowing the application of the petitioner preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC ?

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:-

2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has instituted a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against defendants No.1 and 2/respondents No.2 and 3. The suit is registered as Civil Suit No.5A/2011. Written statement was filed in the said suit. The present petitioners preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. for their impleadment on the ground that the plaintiff is real brother of applicant No.1 and applicant No.2 is son of real brother Late Mahendra Mahadik. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff by filing reply. The Court below by impugned order dated 9.8.2011 disallowed the said application.

3. Shri D.D.Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the relation of present petitioners with the plaintiff is not in dispute. He further submits that a partition suit (Annexure P/6) is pending before the competent Court which further shows the aforesaid rel








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