Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1966 (12) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a partition of the mills and for separate possession of his share. The petitioners filed their written statement contending inter alia that the mills is a partnership property and that a suit for partition is not maintainable, during the continuance of the partnership. Whilst this suit was pending, the petitioners filed a suit O.S. No. 520 of 1963 in the District Munsif's Court, Erode, against the respondent and prayed for an injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing into the rice-mill premises and interfering with the business of the petitioners. The suit was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Erode, and now bears O.S. No. 151 of 1964. After the pleadings in both the suits were complete, the respondent took .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e interest that is necessary to make a person a party is legal interest including equitable interest, that is, an interest which law would recognise and uphold. Thus, the sine qua non for any person being impleaded to an already pending lis is that he or she should have a direct or tangible interest in the subject-matter. A mere convenience or benefit which might possibly result to a party applicant by adding another party to the pending suit is not the test to be applied. Avoidance of multiplicity of legal proceedings is no doubt a salient rule. Such avoidance must be in relation to the lis in question and cannot embarrass all possible conceivable litigation that the parties may indulge in later which are totally unconnected with the main .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for against the proposed party. 4. In such circumstances, the main question that arises for determination is, whether the vendor of the respondent who has been directed to be added as a proper party by the lower Court can be considered to have been so added legally. In re, Ibrahim Haji, AIR 1957 Mad 699 , Ramaswami J. held as follows:-- Order 1, Rule 10(2), Civil P. C., confers wide discretion to the Court to meet every case of defect of parties but is subject to two limitations, viz., (1) that the Court has no power to join a person as a party if he could not have been originally impleaded under O. 1, R. 1, or R. 3, Civil P.C. and (2) that the presence of the person added must be necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n these state of affairs, it is not easy to comprehend as to what possible suit in the future as between the parties to the two suits can be avoided by impleading the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent herein as party to the suit. It may be that there may be controversies and there may be rights and liabilities inter se between the respondent and his vendor. But the adjudication of such disputes or a reference to it in the present suits would be alien to the scope of such suits. As pointed out by Mukherji J., in Nrisingh Prosad v. Steel Products, Ltd., AIR 1953 Cal 15 , it is only for the purpose of the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties that a Court might exercise its judicial discretion and add a third party .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as a guidance in the case of adding of parties under O. 1, R. 10, Civil P. C.: (1) If, for the adjudication of the real controversy between the parties on record, the presence of a third party is necessary, then he can be impleaded. (2) It is imperative to note that by such impleading of the proposed party, all controversies arising in the suit and all issues arising thereunder may be finally determined and set at rest, thereby avoiding multiplicity of suits over a subject-matter which could still have been decided in the pending suit itself; (3) The proposed party has a defined, subsisting, direct and substantive interests in the litigation, which interest is either legal or equitable and which right is cognisable in law; (4) Meticulous .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates