Disposed

Meena Jawahar Palaniappan v. Headway Projects

Madras HC23 Jan 2024A/374/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed two applications in a civil suit. The court permitted the impleadment of the husband of a respondent as a defendant citing dominus litus, and admitted documents to be marked as exhibits subject to final admissibility objections.

What did the court decide?

A.No.374 and 375 of 2024 were allowed; Registry directed to amend plaint and issue summons; documents marked as exhibits subject to final admissibility decisions.

Meena Jawahar Palaniappan Vs Headway Projects — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

A.No.374 and 375 of 2024 in CS.No.428 of 2019

¶2

A.Nos.374 and 375 of 2024 in CS.No.428 of 2019

¶3

N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.

¶4

These applications are filed to add the 5^th Respondent as the 5^th Defendant and to receive the documents 1 to 15 in CS.No.428 of 2019, respectively.

¶5

This Court heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the affidavits filed in support of the applications.

¶6

The proposed party/5^th Respondent is the husband of the 2^nd Defendant. It is the contention of the Applicant that the proposed 5^th Respondent is also a Partner of the 1st Respondent Firm and hence, he is a proper and necessary party to be impleaded in the suit. The learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed for impleading the proposed 5^th Respondent to the suit.

¶7

It is not in dispute that the 2^nd Defendant is the wife of the proposed 5^th Respondent and that the impleadment was sought on the ground that the proposed 5^th Respondent is also one of the Partners of the 1st Respondent Firm. Such being the position, the Plaintiff being dominus litus, he can implead any person against whom the relief is sought at Defendant. In such view of the matter, A.No.374 of 2024 is allowed as prayed for. No costs. The Registry is directed to carry out amendment in the plaint and the amended copy of the plaint shall be filed on or before 31.01.2024 and thereafter, summons shall be issued to the newly added proposed party.

¶8

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

¶9

A.No.374 and 375 of 2024 in CS.No.428 of 2019

¶10

Srcm

¶11

N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.

¶12

Considering the nature of the documents 1 to 15 sought to be marked, the same shall be received in evidence and marked as exhibits, however, subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. The Respondents are at liberty to raise any objections at the time of marking those documents before the Master, before whom the documents will be marked. The objections if any raised by the Respondents will be decided at the time of final disposal of the suit. Accordingly, A.No.375 of 2024 is allowed, as prayed for. No costs.

¶13

23.01.2024

¶14

Srcm

¶15

A.No.374 and 375 of 2024 in CS.No.428 of 2019

¶16

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

Meena Jawahar Palaniappan v. Headway Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Jawahar Palaniappan v. Headway Projects

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Umapathy, Vs K.Krishnamurthy and Another

Mr.Farok Sarkari S/o.Late Mr.Preston Ji Rustam Vs M/s.New Finn Groups Rep.by its Partner Mr.a.Balasubramaniam and another

P.Barathadevi Vs P.Gunasekaran and 2 Others

Mrs. Seetha a Raman and 9 Others Vs nil

Bhagyalakshmi B Vs nil

K.Naresh Vs Nithya Srinivasan and 7 Others