Or.1, rule 10 of C.P.C.- suit for specific performance - purchasers pending suit filed impleading petition - their lordships allowed the same subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

It is well settled in law that in case of impleadment of
parties, it is not the jurisdiction of the Court, but the judicial
discretion which has to be exercised keeping in mind all the
facts and circumstances of a particular case.
In the present
case, the application is filed by persons, who claimed to have
purchased a part of property under a registered sale deed
pending the suit.
Though they ought to have been aware of
the paper publication taken by the Plaintiff prior to the
institution of the suit and the pendency of the suit, as the
vendors were made parties to the proceedings, their legal
rights in the property would be affected by the proposed
decree, if it is passed in favour of the plaintiff.
The petitioners
did not explain the reason for filing the application belatedly
after five years.
Almost all the defendants in the suit have not
Though defendant No.9 filed a written statement,
he did not participate in the subsequent proceedings.
  In the circumstances, justice would demand the
application of the petitioners be permitted subject to payment
of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff with a condition that
they cannot be permitted to take defences which are not
available to their vendors -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPROTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS