SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36012

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ghanshyam Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Lalit Gupta – Respondent


Advocates:
Santosh Bhardwaj,

ORDER

The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.03.2023, whereby an application dated 25.07.2022 under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the respondent No.1/proposed intervener has been allowed without considering the fact that the proceedings are initiated under Section 307(5) of the Municipal Corporation Act and the petitioner was impleaded party on the strength of the order dated 30.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.16640/2020 (PIL).

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the trial Court against the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that the trial Court itself has observed in the impugned order that no cause of action has been shown by the respondent No.1 and in the present case, respondent No.1 is neither a proper party nor necessary party. In the present case the proposed intervener does not satisfy this twin requirement and has also failed to show any cause of action to him. As such the order is bad in the eyes of law and hence the present petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

4. Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC enable

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