Allowed
Jose C.Thomas v. Edinjaivila Muhammed Taha
Kerala HCOP(C)/674/2019
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The petitioner challenged an order impleading a bank as an additional defendant. The court held that since the underlying suit concerned a money transaction between the original plaintiff and defendants concerning a dishonoured cheque, the bank holding a charge over the property was not a necessary party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Consequently, the impugned order of impleadment was set aside.
What did the court decide?
The order impleading the bank as a necessary party was set aside.