K.Raja v. Karuppa Gounder
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order that rejected an application to implead petitioners as necessary defendants in a Section 92 suit for establishing a Scheme Decree over trust property.
What did the court decide?
The Civil Revision Petition and the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed; no costs.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.03.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(PD).No.515 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.2566 of 2017
1.K.Raja 2.K.Selvaraja 3.R.Venkidusamy 4.R.Velusamy 5.K.C.Palanisamy 6.N.Parameswaran 7.A.Marimuthu 8.P.Chinnamuthan 9.V.Ramakrishnan 10.S.Rajan 11.K.Periyasamy 12.k.Moorthi 13.K.Rangasamy 14.N.Kumar 15.M.Sarojini 16.S.Rangasamy 17.P.Rathinasamy 18.R.Mariappan @ Bhabini 19.K.Srinivasan 20.K.C.Chinnasamy ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Karuppa Gounder
2.K.Subramaniam 3.K.Rammohan
4.N.Srinivasan
2
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order dismissing the application for impleading petitioners as defendants under Section 92 of the CPC?
Whether the petitioners have established a case of necessary party impleadment in a suit for Scheme Decree?
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
1.K.Raja 2.K.Selvaraja 3.R.Venkidusamy 4.R.Velusamy 5.K.C.Palanisamy 6.N.Parameswaran 7.A.Marimuthu 8.P.Chinnamuthan 9.V.Ramakrishnan 10.S.Rajan 11.K.Periyasamy
- respondent
1.Karuppa Gounder 2.K.Subramaniam 3.K.Rammohan 4.N.Srinivasan 5.B.Gopalakrishnan 6.K.B.Venkatesan 7.Hemalatha 8.R.R.Manickam 9.B.Srinivasan 10.S.M.Sivasamy 11.J
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court