Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J
Aman Deep – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Kumar Bhalla – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts regarding the challenge to an order allowing the impleadment of parties in a civil suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. limitation cannot be avoided by court-granted liberty to file fresh applications under the cpc. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. the court stays the operation of the impugned order pending final adjudication. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
CM APPL. 363/2026 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, application is disposed of.
C.R.P. 3/2026 & CM APPL. 362/2026 (stay)
1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioners/ revisionists assailing the order dated 11th December 2025, passed by the Additional District Judge-01 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Civil Suit no. CIV DJ/8545/2016.
2. By the impugned order, an application moved by plaintiff (therein), under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking to implead the petitioners/ revisionists and respondent no. 9 as defendant nos. 8, 9 & 10 in the suit, was allowed.
3. The suit was permitted to be amended qua newly added defendant nos. 8-10.
4. Counsel for revisionists submits that the cause o
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
