Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
Rathinasamy – Appellant
Versus
Chinnasamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against order rejecting impleadment application (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's submission on settlement deed and necessary party (Para 3) |
| 3. court's analysis on proper adjudication without prejudice (Para 5) |
| 4. final order allowing revision and setting aside lower court order (Para 6) |
ORDER
Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2025, the revision petitioners filed the present revision.
2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioner has filed an application in I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to implead one Dinesh Kumar, who is the son of the revision petitioner, as second defendant in the suit proceedings. The said application was dismissed by the trial court holding that if at all the said Dinesh Kumar is having any right and title over the property, the revision petitioner has to work out his remedy by separate suit and not in the present suit. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that after the suit, the revision petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of his son Dinesh Kumar and therefore he wanted to implead him as necessary party to the proceedin
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
