Allowed

J.Phanindra Kumar v. Padmini Pictures and 2 Others

Madras HC19 Aug 2021A/2696/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application seeks to implead a party claiming absolute rights over the subject matter and strike out a wrongly added party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC. The court acknowledged the delay objection but impleaded the necessary party and struck off the incorrect defendant.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent is impleaded as the 4th defendant; the original 1st defendant is struck off the party array.

J.Phanindra Kumar Vs Padmini Pictures and 2… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

A.No.2696 of 2012 in C.S.No.61 of 2008

¶2

A.No.2696 of 2012 in

¶3

C.S.No.61 of 2008

¶4

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶5

It is stated that the amendment pursuant to the order dated

¶6

03.08.2021 has been carried out and the amended copy of the application

¶7

has been filed. The learned counsel for the proposed party is consistently absent.

¶8

2.A.No.2696 of 2012 has been filed seeking to strike out a party,

¶9

who was wrongly added and to add the right description of the 1st respondent in the cause title. Since the proposed party namely, the proper person, who is to represent the firm called M/s.Padmini Pictures was not impleaded in the said application. A.No.4315 of 2012 was filed and the same was allowed on 03.08.2021. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter opposing the application. The main ground of opposition is the delay in filing the application.

¶10

3.This application is essentially one filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to strike out a wrongly added party

¶11

and add a party, who ought to have been impleaded. The powers of the

¶12

Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) are very wide and can be exercised by the

¶13

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶14

A.No.2696 of 2012 in C.S.No.61 of 2008

¶15

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶16

KKN Court at any time. From the counter affidavit filed by the proposed party to

¶17

the application in A.No.4315 of 2012, it is clear that the proposed party namely, Mrs.B.R.Vijayalakshmi claims absolute right to the movies and she contends that her brother, B.R.Ravishankar has no right to assign the movies to the plaintiff.

¶18

4.In the light of the said contention, it becomes imperative that she

¶19

is made a party to the suit so that the dispute between the parties could be effectively adjudicated upon. I therefore, see no merit in the objections that have been taken and this application is ordered, the 4th respondent in this application is impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit and the original 1^st defendant is struck off from the party array.

¶20

5.Registry shall make the corrections required to be made, pursuant

¶21

to the above order and post the suit for further hearing.

¶22

19.08.2021

¶23

kkn/skr

¶24

A.No.2696 of 2012 in C.S.No.61 of 2008

¶25

2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

J.Phanindra Kumar v. Padmini Pictures and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Phanindra Kumar v. Padmini Pictures and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Creamline Dairy Products Vs M/S.S.v.Milk Dairy Farm

G.v.Films Ltd., Rep.by Its Vs Gayathri Holdings P.Ltd.

Chitra Match Works Vs Nataraj General Stores

Ad Padmasingh Issac Vs Aks Traders

Reliance Industries Limited Vs Reliance Stationery World Pvt.

M/S Sony India Pvt. .Ltd Vs D.Satish Babu