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
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
Post a Comment