TMI Blog1939 (5) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner's village was sold but the sale was set aside under Order 21, Rule 89 on the petitioner depositing ₹ 7,976-9-6 in Court. The petitioner alone having thus paid the entire amount which was payable from out of all the villages charged with such payment, he claimed to be entitled to recover ₹ 2,514 by way of contribution from the owners of the other villages. Subsequently, the petitioner sold the village of Puducottah to the first respondent with all rights appurtenant thereto. The sale-deed purports to convey also the petitioner's right to recover this sum of ₹ 2,514 and the present suit was accordingly brought by the first respondent impleading the petitioner as second plaintiff for recovering this sum fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter's name from the suit would be highly prejudicial to him. The second respondent has no objection to the petitioner's name being struck off as second plaintiff, provided he is added as a defendant but insists that the petitioner should remain on the record, as his presence is necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of all the matters in controversy between the parties. 4. The Court below held that the joinder of the petitioner as second plaintiff was not shown to be improper and that he had no absolute right of withdrawing from the suit under Order 23, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code, without the consent of the first respondent and therefore dismissed the application. The petitioner's learned Advocate conceded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fendant. 5. The Court below has taken the view, relying upon Banbihari Mukherji v. Bhejnath Singh Mahapatra I.L.R. (1931) 59 Cal. 329, that the 'questions involved in the suit' referred to in Order 1, Rule 10(2) must mean the questions which are involved in the suit as originally framed between the parties to the suit. But this High Court has placed a wider interpretation on those words and has held that the object of the provision is that where several disputes arise out of one subject-matter, all the parties interested in such disputes should be brought before the Court and all questions in controversy between them should be completely settled in the action-- see Secretary of State for India v. Murugesa Mudaliar (1928) 29 L.W. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
