K. Andal v. Kishore Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge dismissed two civil revision petitions challenging an order allowing the impleadment of third-party purchasers in an appellate suit over property titles.
What did the court decide?
The impugned order dated 08.06.2017 allowing impleadment is confirmed and the revision petitions are dismissed.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR
CRP (PD) Nos.651 and 652 of 2018
and
C.M.P.Nos.3378 and 3379 of 2018
Mrs.K.Andal .. Petitioner
in C.R.P.No.651 of 2018
G.Mythili .. Petitioner
in C.R.P.No.652 of 2018
Vs
1.Kishore Kumar
2.Sridhar
3.B.Arunkumar
4.The District Registrar,
Villupuram District,
Villupuram.
5.The Sub-Registrar,
Ananthapuram Sub-Registrar Office,
Ananthapuram Village,
Gingee Taluk.
6.Kumaran .. Respondents
in both C.R.Ps.
2
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order and decretal order dated 08.06.2017 in I.A.No.191 of 2016 in A.S.No.9 of 2016 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gingee.
For Petitioners : Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanantham (for both C.R.Ps.) COMMON ORDER These revision petitions have been filed to set aside the order and decretal order dated 08.06.2017 in I.A.No.191 of 2016 in
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the subordinating court erred in allowing the impleadment of purchasers as respondents in the appeal under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC.
Whether the appellate court's order upholding the impleadment relied upon correctly under settled law regarding lis pendens and necessary parties.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K. Andal
- petitioner
G. Mythili
- respondent
Kishore Kumar
- respondent
Sridhar
- respondent
B. Arunkumar
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court