Allowed a petition to implead the appellant\'s son as an 11th respondent in the Second Appeal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Directed the registry to amend the cause title.
Petition allowed. Son of appellant impleaded as 11th respondent. Registry directed to amend cause title.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
C.M.P.No. 13159 of 2022
in S.A. No. 845 of 2018
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to implead Mr.R.B.Vikneshwara, son of M.R.Balakrishnan, the appellant herein, as party respondent and rank him as 11th respondent in the above Second Appeal.
submitted that son of appellant filed this petition to implead him as necessary party for the reason that the issue between the parties ended in compromise. He would also submit that since the suit for partition reached the final decree proceedings, he, being the son of appellant may be impleaded as necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, he has filed the above petition.
and submitted his no objection in allowing this petition.
2
multiplicity of proceedings, in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed. The son of the appellant herein is impleaded as 11th respondent in the above Second Appeal.
the cause title.
10.08.2022
pbl
3
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
pbl
C.M.P.No. 13159 of 2022
in
S.A. No.845 of 2018
10.08.2022
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the son of the appellant should be impleaded as a necessary party in the second appeal proceedings.
T.V. Vikneshwara
Second Appellant
T.V.Thamilselvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
