Back
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
Pramendra Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Farukh Miya – Respondent
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 1.8.2017 passed by 21st Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal in R.C.S No.A/4800179/2013, whereby, the application under Order 1 rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure had been allowed by the learned trial Court directing to implead Mrs. Lubna Khan wife of Sharyar Khan and his mother Saba Khan, as defendants No.2 and 3 respectively.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following
broad submissions.
(i) The suit in question is for eviction of the suit property and for recovery of arrears of rent with interest thereon and, therefore, the scope of civil suit cannot be enlarged to that of declaration of title, as he has not raised any title dispute.
(ii) By allowing the application of the proposed defendant, the trial Court has acceded to its jurisdiction and has committed manifest error.
(iii) The proposed defendant No.2 Smt. Lubna Khan, has made an application for impleadment on the basis of false and fabricated sale deed executed by her mother Saba Khan which is against the Will of her brother and mother Krishna Shrivastava. In R.P No.315/2021, this Court has clearly held t
The High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 are limited to ensuring subordinate courts act within their authority, and it cannot interfere without evidence of jurisdictional abuse.
The landlord is required to prove the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant and the grounds for eviction, and the title to the premises in dispute is not essential for the decision of ....
Impleading purchasers as plaintiffs requires their consent; original plaintiffs cannot compel unwilling parties to pursue abandoned litigation.
The High Court upheld the trial court's rejection of an amendment to the written statement, affirming that such amendments are allowed only under specific conditions and do not alter the nature of th....
A trial court must respect the plaintiff's dominus litis status and cannot compel a plaintiff to pursue claims against new defendants without their consent, especially if a sale occurred during an im....
The court emphasized the importance of timely filing of petitions under Article 227 and the need for satisfactory explanation for any delay. The court also highlighted the requirement for sufficient ....
The absence of supporting documents and pleadings to establish co-tenancy and legal status precludes judicial intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
