AI Overview...
- Order 1 Rule 10 Application Not Maintainable in 41 LR Proceeding - Main points and insights:
- An application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is generally used to implead or add parties to a pending suit or proceeding Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh VS Sri Antaryami Mohapara - Orissa.
- The application must be made during the pendency of the suit or proceeding and is not intended for challenging final judgments or interlocutory orders that are not appealable Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh VS Sri Antaryami Mohapara - Orissa, DIKSHA SURI VS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - Delhi.
- Courts have held that if the main order or decree is not challenged within the prescribed period, subsequent applications under Order 1 Rule 10 are not maintainable to alter or add parties post finality THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD AND ANOTHER vs DADAJEE DHAKJEE PVT. LTD - Bombay.
-
In the context of 41 LR proceedings, such applications are typically considered interlocutory and cannot be used to re-open or challenge the finality of the decree unless specific provisions or exceptions apply THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD AND ANOTHER vs DADAJEE DHAKJEE PVT. LTD - Bombay.
-
Analysis and Conclusion:
- The main reason for the non-maintainability of Order 1 Rule 10 applications in 41 LR proceedings is that such applications are procedural and meant for parties to be added during the pendency of a suit or proceeding, not for challenging final orders or decrees.
- Once a judgment or decree becomes final, subsequent applications under Order 1 Rule 10 to add parties are generally not permissible, as they would amount to re-litigation or reopening of settled issues.
- Therefore, in 41 LR proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 is not maintainable if the main order has already been finalized and no appeal or review is pending to challenge the decree THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD AND ANOTHER vs DADAJEE DHAKJEE PVT. LTD - Bombay.
References: - Sitaram alias Mahendra Ghosh VS Sri Antaryami Mohapara - Orissa - DIKSHA SURI VS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - Delhi - THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEVLOPMENT BANK LTD AND ANOTHER vs DADAJEE DHAKJEE PVT. LTD - Bombay
Search Results for "Order 1 Rule 10 Application Not Maintainable in 41 Lr Proceeding"
2017 0 Supreme(HP) 491 • India - Himachal Pradesh
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
Order 41 Rule 3A - Stay of Execution of Decree - Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C., Section 5 of Limitation Act, Section 16 of H.P. ... Land Revenue Act - Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C. provides that Court shall proceed to deal with the appeal under Rule 11 only after finally ... The judgment discusses the interpretation of Order 41 Rule 3A C.P.C., Section 5 of Limitation Act, a....
2016 0 Supreme(Ori) 1014 • India - Orissa
D.DASH
preliminary decree is one which declares the rights and liabilities of the parties leaving the actual result to be worked out in further proceedings ... ... 10.Before proceeding to address the above substantial questions of law, it is necessary to deal with the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure giving rise to Misc. Case No. 217 of 2014. ... The respondent nos. 1 (a) to 1(d) have filed the ....
1989 0 Supreme(Kar) 349 • India - Karnataka
H.G.BALAKRISHNA
The period of limitation for such application is not 12 years but 3 years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. ... Restitution - Application under Section 144 of the C. P. ... C. provides the remedy of restitution and an application is made thereunder, it is unnecessary to make an application under Section ... No. 41 of 1973 was dismissed on the ground that the proceeding under section 144 of the C. P. C. is an execution proceeding and that an #H....
2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1824 • India - Karnataka
ARAVIND KUMAR, SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Petitioner having not filed any appeal challenging main order has sought to misuse process of this Court by treating an application ... for review as an appeal in disguse. – Hence, on this ground also Review Petition is not maintainable – Review Petition Dismissed ... of Order 47 rule 1 of CPC. – Review petition filed, arguments advanced by petitioner in instant case do not satisfy requirements ... Mayawati & Others [AIR 2013 SC 330....
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 5933 • India - Bombay High Court
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
(c) The Court of the Civil Judge trying any suit, proceeding or application withdrawn under clause (a) from the Court of Small Causes, shall, for purposes of such suit, proceeding or application, as the case may be, be deemed to be the Court ... provisions of sub-section (2), no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any such suit, proceeding, or application or to deal with such claim or question. ... The plaintiff has invoked Section 41 of the PSCC Act for ....
2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 6052 • India - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT, SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 41 - Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC - Dismissal of complaint due to absence of ... ... ... Findings of Court: ... The court found that the appellant was a necessary party to the complaint and that the application ... ... ... Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the application should have been allowed for complete adjudication, emphasizing ... Since vide order dated 12.#HL_....
2024 Supreme(Online)(ALL) 2728 • India - High Court of Allahabad
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. and Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
(Paras 38, 41) ... ... Issues: The main issue was whether the order rejecting the amendment application ... application - The court dismissed the appeal as the order was deemed an interlocutory order, thus not appealable under Section 19 ... an order rejecting an amendment application does not constitute a 'case decided' and is not subject to appeal under Section 19 of ... Present appeal has bee....
2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5044 • India - High Court of Himachal Pradesh
Virender Singh, J
application was not maintainable. ... (A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 5, Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, Section 151 - Application for stay of execution of judgment ... (Paras 1, 10, 22, 27) ... ... (B) Status Quo - Definition ... ORDER “By way of instant application filed under Order 41 rule#....
2003 0 Supreme(Ori) 716 • India - Orissa
P.K.TRIPATHY
1. ... WORDS AND PHRASES - "Cases decided", "Proceeding" - Meaning of. (Paras - 4 to 6) ... been passed in his favour than the 'suit or other proceeding' would have stood disposed of finally. ... In that proceeding oppo¬site parties 3 and 4 (of this civil revision) filed an applica¬tion under Order 1, Rule 10, read with Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code with the prayer to implead them as parties....
1997 0 Supreme(Del) 900 • India - Delhi
R.C.LAHOTI, K.MEHRA
254(2) of the Act — Application Under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 pending for amending/modification of questions of ... They may seek condensation of delay in moving the application also seeking exclusion of time lost in the proceedings before this ... We do not intend to pre-empt the jurisdiction, of the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the petitioners application under Section 256 ... All the pleas available to the petitioners on which challenge was laid or could have be....
Filter by Legal Phrase
