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) 803

VIVEK AGARWAL
Rajeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Rajan Alias Rajendra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Abhishek Bindal, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard.

2. Petitioners have filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 11.11.2017 passed by the Court of 2nd Civil Judge Class-I, Morena rejecting the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 22 Rule 10 read with Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC

3. It is petitioners' contention t ring pendency of the suit though there was an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs- petitioners, but defendant no.2 has sold the property in favour of certain third parties and the petitioners wish to implead them as a party. This application has been rejected on the ground that as the suit is pending since 2008, therefore, the provisions of lis pendens under Section 52 will be applicable and there is no need to implead them as a party.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Urmila Patel & Another v. Laxmibai & Others as reported in 2001 (1) MPLJ 480, wherein relying on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & Others : AIR 1958 SC 886 and Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Others : AI



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