The Court allowed the impleading petition of a subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property. Relying on Thomson Press, the Court held the lis pendens purchaser is an interested party and directed impleadment as the 4th respondent.
Impleadment of the petitioner as 4th respondent in S.A.No.610 of 2013 directed.
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.
C.M.P.No.15433 of 2022 in S.A.No.610 of 2013
V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
The petitioner is the subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule mentioned property.
08.03.2024
nl
Note: Office is directed to implead the petitioner as 4th respondent in S.A.No.610 of 2013
1 of 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent purchaser of the suit schedule property is an interested party entitled to be impleaded.
Whether the impleading petition should be allowed in the underlying appeal.
Whether the principles of lis pendens apply to render the subsequent purchaser an interested party.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thomson Press (India) Ltd. vs Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd.Relied on¶4
Thomson Press (India) Ltd., vs. Nanak Builders and Investors (P) Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 397 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner (Subsequent purchaser of suit schedule property)
Respondents
V. Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
V. Lakshminarayanan
Parties & counsel
