NO DEFENDANT CAN FILE OR. 1, RULE 10 C.P.C. - IMPLEADING PETITION IN THE SUIT FOR IMPLEADING THIRD PARTIES= the defendants filed I.A.No.1090 of 2012 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC before the trial Court. = defendants cannot insist the plaintiff to bring any person as a co-defendant. If it is a case of the defendants that respondents 2 & 3 are necessary parties, the defendants may take advantage of the non-impleading of respondents 2 & 3 and seek for a dismissal of the suit on the ground of non- joinder of the necessary parties. However, it is not permissible for the defendants to insist that the plaintiff should bring other parties as co-defendants.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/filename=9745

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR      

C.R.P No.899 of 2013

22.03.2013

Arshad Ahmed and another

Mohd. Shujauddin

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Pratap Reddy and Sri P. Srihari Nath
Counsel for Respondents: None appeared.

<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

ORDER:

The petitioners are the defendants.
The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale.
Contending that the respondents 2 & 3 who
are Government Officials are necessary parties to the suit, the defendants filed
I.A.No.1090 of 2012 under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC before the trial Court. 
 The
trial Court dismissed the application.  Assailing the same, the present revision
is laid.

2.      I am afraid that the petitioners as
defendants cannot insist the plaintiff
to bring any person as a co-defendant.  
If it is a case of the defendants that respondents 2 & 3 are
necessary parties, the defendants may take advantage of the non-impleading of
respondents 2 & 3 and seek for a dismissal of the suit on the ground of non-
joinder of the necessary parties.  
However, it is not permissible for the
defendants to insist that the plaintiff should bring other parties as
co-defendants.  
The trial Court, therefore, is perfectly justified in dismissing
the I.A.No.1190 of 2012.

3.      This petition is devoid of merits.  However, this revision is closed.
Needless to state that the petitioners as defendants may request the trial Court
to decide the issue regarding the non-joindier of necessary parties as a
preliminary issue.  In such an event, it is for the trial Court to determine
such a petition on its own merits.
No costs.
_________________________  
JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR  
Date:22.03.2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.