Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was subject matter of the suit.= whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ? a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and if the real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain the existence or otherwise of the rastha, it is always open for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through Court to compel them to appear before the Court. Further, there are number of other people through whom those facts could be ascertained. A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit in dispute. The purpose for which the respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act. One important aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit is simplicitor injunction suit. Further, this court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents- defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Or.1, rule 10 - an Interlocutory
Application seeking to bring on record, the proposed Respondent
Nos.3 to 6, who are the vendors to the revision petitioners-plaintiffs
and to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the property, which was
subject matter of the suit.=
whether there are necessary parties - with out whom -no decree be passed effectively ?
a copy of the plan annexed to the plaint would itself reveal that the
rastha as shown in the plaint plan consists of several plots and
if the
real intention of the revision petitioners-plaintiffs is only to ascertain
the existence or otherwise of the rastha, 
it is always open for the
revision petitioners-plaintiffs to summon respondents 3 to 6 through
Court to compel them to appear before the Court.  
Further, there are
number of other people through whom those facts could be
ascertained.
A perusal of the order of the Trial Court and the plan
annexed to the plaint, this Court is of the opinion that the presence
of the respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not necessary for the purpose of
proper adjudication of the suit in dispute.  
The purpose for which the
respondent Nos.3 to 6 were sought to be brought on record, subject
to the legal limitations, can be achieved through various other
provisions of the Code and Indian Evidence Act.  
One important
aspect, which needs to be considered in this kind of matters, is that
the suit is of the year 2003 and the relief which is sought in the suit
is simplicitor injunction suit.  
Further, this court is in agreement
with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-
defendants that the revision petitioners-plaintiffs are at liberty to
take necessary steps to adduce evidence by summoning witnesses in   
accordance with law. -2015 A.P.(2014) MSK LAW REPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more