Dhanalakshmi v. Mohan
Case brief
What is this about?
Allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking impleadment of a subsequent purchaser of the subject property as the 38th respondent in a pending Second Appeal. The court held that allowing the impleadment avoids multiplicity of proceedings.
What did the court decide?
Impleading of the petitioner as the 38th respondent in Second Appeal No. 1415 of 2013.
What the court decided
1
C.M.P.No. 6404 of 2021
in S.A. No. 1415 of 2013
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking to implead the petitioner as party respondent No. 37 in the above Second Appeal.
- Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for petitioner/impleading party
submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner has purchased the party and as he is a subsequent purchaser, he wants to implead himself in the above Second Appeal. Hence, he has filed the above petition.
- Mr.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 and Mr.R.Asokan, learned counsel for respondents 17 to 24, 35 and 38 to 42 appeared and contended that during the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner had purchased the property and the same is hit by principle of lis pendens.
2
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a subsequent purchaser of a property during pendency of litigation should be impleaded to avoid multiplicity of proceedings despite lis pendens.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
Respondents 1 to 6
- respondent
Respondents 17 to 24, 35, and 38 to 42
Coram
T.V. Thamilselvi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court