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

2018 Supreme(MP) 420

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI
Rajkumar Baraiya – Appellant
Versus
Virendra Bapna – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
N.K. Gupta with S.D. Singh for petitioner;
D.D. Bansal for respondents.

ORDER

1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated 23.3.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No. 19A/2016 by the learned XIVth Civil Judge, Class-II, Gwalior (MP) whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (Hereinafter referred to as “CPC') for impleading him as a defendant in the suit has been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner's father namely Late Shri Laxmi Chand Baraiya was tenant of the plaintiff and was carrying on business in the name of Firm M/s Motilal Laxmi Chand Baraiya. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction of the shop against the brother of the petitioner. Written statement has been filed by Heeralal Baraiya/respondent No. 2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a necessary and proper party and is in possession of the shop and carrying on business from the tenanted premises, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendant in the suit. The reply was filed by the plain













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