Petition against trial court's rejection of application to implead subsequent purchasers as defendants. High Court held the application was filed to protract litigation. Petition dismissed under Article 227.
Writ petition challenging the impugned order is dismissed.
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.409 of 2016
9.11.2016 This petition challenges the order dated 16.2.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (
Senior Division), Kantabanji in C.S.No.3 of 2015. By the said order, the learned trial court r
ejected the application of defendant no.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. to implead the subseque
nt purchasers as defendants. Only to protract the litigation, this petition has been filed.
Opposite parties 1 and 2 as plaintiffs instituted Civil Suit No.3 of 2015 for partitio
n impleading the petitioner and opposite parties 3 and 4 as defendants. The petitioner and opp
osite party no.2 are the principal witness. Opposite party no.4 is the per forma defendant. Th
e case of the defendants is that there was a previous partition. While the matter stood thus,
defendant no.1 filed an application to implead the subsequent purchasers. The learned trial co
urt rejected the same.
Heard Mr.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Chulli, learned counsel for
the opposite parties.
By the impugned order, the learned trial court directed the principal defendant to beg
in first. At this juncture, application has been filed to implead the subsequent purchasers. T
he reasons assigned by the learned trial court cannot be said to be perfunctory or flawed warr
anting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. This Court is of the
view that the same has been filed to protract the litigation.
The petition is dismissed.
2
Petitioner
Opposite parties 1 and 2
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court