Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, JJ
NIRMAL LUGANI & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
LATE SH RAM SARUP LUGANI & ORS. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for substitution of parties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against substitution based on mandatory provisions of section 92. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. discussion on mandatory requirements under section 92 (Para 8 , 21) |
| 4. respondents argue appeal is invalid; relies on prior case law. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's observations on appeal maintainability. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. legal standards on requirements under section 92 of cpc. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. court's analysis on maintainability and inherent powers (Para 17) |
| 8. conclusion affirming the lower court's decision. (Para 24) |
2. The said application was filed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein under Order I Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 10, Order XXII Rule 3 and Section 151 of the CPC seeking substitution of Respondent No. 1 with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, or in the alternative, impleadment of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as necessary and proper parties, along with leave to them to institute the accompanying suit under Section 92 of the CPC against the Appellants.
3. The dispute involved herein is singular insofar as the Appellants contend that the learned Single Judge erred in granting the reliefs sought by t
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
