Partition Suit - Posted for Judgment - suit filed in the year 2006 - Plaintiff took several adjournments with out getting ready for submitting arguments - Petition to implead some persons at the stage of argument was dismissed - arguments submitted - when the matter was posted for judgment - third party - sons of exparte defendant filed an application in the year 2014 for impleadment - opposed by Def.No.9 a bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property but not by plaintiff and by other defendants - Trial court dismissed - Their Lordships held that since there was no explanation how they come about suit proceedings after the lapse of several years - lacks bonafides and as such the trial court rightly dismissed the same. - 2015 Telangana & A.P.msklawreports


LAW : - Or.1, Rule 10 C.P.C.
SUB :- Impleading Petition. 
I.A.No.1067 of 2014
moved in O.S.No.1546 of 2006 seeking impleadment as Defendant No.22   
to the suit.=  has not been opposed by the plaintiffs, nor the other defendants did oppose that except D 9.  the trial court dismissed the petition 
Held :-
 The suit, as it is, was instituted in the year 2006.  
It appears that the matter was coming up for Judgment, literally.  
When the case was posted for final arguments,
it appears that the plaintiffs have taken several adjournments and
submitted their arguments at long last. 
When the matter was posted for
Judgment, the plaintiffs have filed an interlocutory application for
impleading some other third-parties as parties to the suit.  That
Application was also dismissed by the Court.  
Thereafter, the present
application in I.A.No.1067 of 2014 is filed. 
 It is, therefore, contended by
defendant 9 that there are no bona fides behind the said Application and
it is only intended to protract and prolong the issue, so that it will not
get decided one way or the other.
        In the absence of any reasonably-believable explanation as to how
all of a sudden the petitioner herein has gained knowledge about the
pendency of a civil suit, which came to be instituted in the year 2006,
and all other developments that have taken therein, the assertion of
defendant 9 that the present Application lacks bona fides gained
strength.  
When the petitioner could assert that no summons were
served during the lifetime of his father and that service was effected
through substituted service, it will not be unreasonable to presume that
the petitioner is in the know of the procedure that is normally adopted
by the civil Court.  
If he is that much aware, as is sought to be made out
from the contents of para 3 of the affidavit filed in support of
I.A.No.1067 of 2014, extracted supra, the petitioner owes a clear
obligation to explain to the Court as to how he has come to know of all
these developments all of a sudden and moved an Application only in
January, 2014.
        I do not find any infirmity, either legal or otherwise, in exercise
of jurisdiction carried out by the Court below in dismissing I.A.No.1067
of 2014, not only because the said Application is a belated one, but it
clearly lacks any bona fides.

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