Dismissed¶59

Ramawati Kuwar v. Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Civil Miscellaneous (Patna High Court, Arun Kumar Jha, J) – Impleadment of parties – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC

Patna HC3 Apr 2025C.Misc./665/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Impleadment of lis pendens purchasers; Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC; proper party; transferee pendente lite; alienee joined as party; Section 151 CPC restoration of Order 23 Rule 3 misc case; specific performance compromise decree; Amit Kumar Shaw AIR 2005 SC 2209; Savitri Devi AIR 1999 SC 976; multiplicity of litigation; purchasers in possession; intervention in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002; Patna High Court; C.Misc. No. 665 of 2019; Munsif-II Siwan.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners; the trial court's order dated 05.03.2019 impleading respondent nos. 6 and 7 stands affirmed and the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed. ¶59

Ramawati Kuwar Vs Sanjay Kumar Gupta — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the trial court's order dated 05.03.2019 impleading respondent nos. 6 and 7 stands affirmed and the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 of the learned Munsif-II, Siwan allowing impleadment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 is illegal and vitiated by error of jurisdiction. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The learned trial court did not commit any error of jurisdiction in allowing the impleadment petition of respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; the order dated 05.03.2019 is a valid order and is affirmed.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

Since the original defendant Ramchandra Sah and his wife Panmati Kuwar, who sold the suit land to the respondents 2nd set, are no more, and the restoration miscellaneous case is being prosecuted by the maternal grandchildren amid grave apprehension that they may not pursue Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017, it is in order that the purchaser respondents 2nd set be impleaded in the miscellaneous proceeding so as to protect their interest.

¶44

Key takeaways

Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC parties may be impleaded at any stage of the proceedings where their presence would enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved, which also helps stop multiplicity of litigation; lis pendens purchasers can accordingly be impleaded as parties.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous (Patna High Court, Arun Kumar Jha, J) — Impleadment of parties — Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC — Lis pendens purchasers. Petitioners, successors-in-interest of decree-holder Devendra Ojha under the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 (specific performance), sought quashing of the order dated 05.03.2019 of the learned Munsif-II, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2017 — a Section 151 CPC restoration proceeding arising from Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 (an Order 23 Rule 3 CPC case dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.02.2017) — whereby the petition dated 04.12.2018 of respondent nos. 6 and 7, purchasers from the original defendant's heir, was allowed and they were added as parties. Held, dismissing the petition: under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC a person may be added at any stage where his presence enables the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved, which also curbs multiplicity of litigation; the original defendant-vendor and his wife (who sold the suit land to the purchasers) being dead, and the restoration case being prosecuted by maternal grandchildren whose continued pursuit was doubtful, impleadment of the purchasers to protect their interest was proper, relying on Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon, AIR 2005 SC 2209 (para 16) and Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1999 SC 976 (para 8).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.665 of 2019

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ramawati Kuwar, Wife of Late Surenedra Ojha, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶4

Rama Shankar Ojha, Son of Late Surendra Ojha, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶5

Guddu Ojha @ Narendra Ojha, Son of Late Surendra Ojha, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶6

Santu Ojha @ Bijay Shanker Dubey, Son of Nand Kishroe Dubey, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶7

Mostt. Ahilya Devi @ Ahilya Kuwar, Wife of Late Vakil Ojha, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶8

Aman Ojha @ Abhishek Ojha, minor under the guardianship of his mother Ahilya Devi Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, DistrictSiwan.

¶9

Muni Kumari, Daughter of Late Wakil Ojha, Minor under the guardianship of her mother Ahilya Devi, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police StationSiswan, District- Siwan.

¶10

Chhoti Kumari @ Amrita Kumari, Minor under the guardianship of her mother Ahilya Devi, Resident of Village- Nagai, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶11

... ... Petitioner/s

¶12

Versus

¶13

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shojee Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageRamgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶14

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shojee Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageRamgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶15

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Shojee Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village- Ramgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶16

Jayanti Devi, Daughter of Late Shojee Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageRamgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶17

Ranjita Devi, Daughter of Late Shojee Prasad Gupta, Resident of VillageRamgarh, P.O.- Ramgarh, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶18

Rangnath Tiwary, Son of Mukhlal Tiwari, Resident of Village- Ramgarh, P.O. Ramgarh, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶19

Bijay Kumar Sah, Son of Late Ganga Bishun Sah, Resident of VillageRamgarh, P.O. Ramgarh, Police Station- Siswan, District- Siwan.

¶20

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate For Respondent no.6 : Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra, Advocate

¶21

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 2/12

¶22

For the Respondent no.7: Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anju Kumari @ Anju Narain, Adv.

¶23

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA CAV JUDGMENT Date : 03-04-2025

¶24

The petitioners have filed the instant civil miscellaneous petition for quashing the order dated 05.03.2019 passed by learned Munsif-II, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the petition dated 04.12.2018 filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’) has been allowed.

¶25

Facts of the case, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the original defendant no.1 Ramchandra Sah executed a mahadnama on 27.10.1992 in favour of Devendra Ojha, the ancestor of the present petitioners, in respect of land of Khata No. 268, Kheshra No. 1011 for consideration amount of Rs. 30,000/- and he received Rs. 20,000/- at the time of execution of said mahadnama with stipulation that the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- would be paid at the time of registration of the land within one year. However, despite request by Devendra Ojha, Ramchandra Sah declined to execute the sale deed and thereafter Devendra Ojha filed a suit bearing Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan for specific

¶26

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 3/12

¶27

performance. The defendant Ramchandra Sah appeared and contested the suit but ultimately a compromise took place on 15.04.1996 and the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 18.01.2000 and decree was sealed and signed on 03.02.2000. The decree attained finality as it was not challenged. It further transpires that defendant Ramchandra Sah did not obey the decree and refused to execute the sale deed in favour of Devendra Ojha and hence, Devendra Ojha filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan against Ramchandra Sah. It further transpires that Ramchandra Sah filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 for setting aside the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 and for staying the Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. Devendra Ojha entered appearance in the said suit, filed his written statement on 05.03.2003 and also filed a separate petition under Order 23 Rule 3A of the Code on 03.07.2003 praying to dismiss the Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 as it was not maintainable. Further, Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code was filed for cancellation of compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994. The said Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Munsif-II, Siwan. Thereafter, Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017

¶28

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 4/12

¶29

was filed by respondent 1^st set under Section 151 of the Code for restoration of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 which is pending for disposal. During pendency of this miscellaneous case, respondents 2^nd set filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code for their addition as party on 04.12.2018. The petitioners filed rejoinder to the said petition on 11.02.2019 submitting that the intervenors were not necessary party to the proceeding. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition filed by the respondents 2^nd set vide order dated 05.03.2019. This order is under challenge before this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is illegal and the learned trial court has committed error of jurisdiction in allowing the petition for addition of parties. Learned counsel submitted that in a proceeding for restoration of restoration case, the outsiders to the proceeding cannot be allowed to contest the same, that too, when five applicants are already on record. The learned trial court failed to consider that the intervenors are purchasers during pendency and they have purchased the litigation and cannot insist upon being made parties as the heirs of Ramchandra Sah are already on record and for this reason the intervenors/respondents 2^nd set are not necessary parties. The

¶31

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 5/12

¶32

learned trial court has also not considered the fact that the original defendant Ramchandra Sah had entered into the agreement with the ancestor of the petitioners and after decree in the suit for specific performance, based on compromise, handed over the possession to the petitioners. For this reason there was no occasion for transfer of the suit property in favour of the intervenors by the heirs/legal representatives of Ramchandra Sah. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court did not even consider that no date for the sale deed executed in favour of the intervenors have been given and no details of the land transferred in their favour was provided and this shows the application for impleadment has been filed by the respondents 2^nd set with ulterior motive playing hide and seek. Further, in a miscellaneous case filed for restoration of a miscellaneous case, there was no occasion for the intervenors to get themselves impleaded when the applicants of the miscellaneous case are already on record and contesting the same. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order could not be sustained and the same be set aside.

¶33

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.7 vehemently contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same does not need any

¶34

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 6/12

¶35

interference by this Court. Learned senior counsel submitted that the ancestor of the petitioners obtained a fraudulent decree and the original defendant Ramchandra Sah filed Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 for setting aside the said fraudulent decree and execution proceeding based on it. During pendency of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004, Ramchandra Sah died leaving behind his wife Panmati Kuwar who was substituted in his place. In the year 2010 the answering respondent purchased some land from Most. Panmati Kuwar vide registered sale deed dated 01.11.2010. Similarly, one Laxmi Devi, wife of Sanwaliya Sah, had earlier purchased a piece of land from Ramchandra Sah and sold that land to one Sumitra Devi, wife of the answering respondent. Earlier in the year 1996, Ramchandra Sah sold 3 bigha 6 katha land to one Rangnath Tiwari. All the vendees have been continuing in their possession. Panmati Kuwar had grown old and has not been keeping good health, the pairvi in Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 was being done by respondent Bijay Kumar Sah. However, this respondent became busy in connection with marriage ceremony of his niece and as a result no proper steps could be taken in the case and vide order dated 02.02.2017, Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 was dismissed in default. For its restoration, Panmati Kuwar filed a petition under

¶36

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 7/12

¶37

Section 151 of the Code on 18.02.2017 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the interest of respondents Bijay Kumar Sah and Rangnath Tiwari in the suit property is crystal clear as they came into possession of the suit property after purchase either from the original defendant or from his heirs/legal representatives. Panmati Kuwar died on 01.12.2018 and after her death, some of her maternal grandchildren as legal heirs have been made applicants in the miscellaneous case but they were only for the sake of name as they have no direct interest in the proceeding as nothing was left of the property, it is the purchasers who are directly involved in the matter. Learned senior counsel further submitted that these facts go on to show that the respondents 2^nd set have direct interest in the matter and further development has also taken place in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 wherein the affidavits of the respondents 2^nd set have been filed in evidence and respondents 2^nd set have also filed a petition for intervention as purchasers in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002. Moreover, after purchase of the land of Ramchandra Sah by the respondents 2^nd set, heirs/legal representatives, i.e., maternal grandchildren of Ramchandra Sah had no interest in pursuing the matter and as the purchasers are the real and actual

¶38

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 8/12

¶39

owners, they have become the masters of the proceedings and their presence is essentially required. Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned trial court. Learned senior counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Farida Khatoon & Anr., reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of suit is substantial and not just peripheral. Learned senior counsel further submitted that an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interest as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (supra) held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation, is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case. Further, the learned senior counsel referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 976 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed impleadment of the purchasers of the

¶40

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 9/12

¶41

property despite interim injunction granted by the court restraining the respondents from alienating the property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the impleadment of the purchasers are necessary for deciding questions whether sales were committed in contempt and disregard of injunction and whether purchasers were bona fide transferees and in order to avoid the multiplicity of suits.

¶42

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. From the contention of the parties, it is apparent that the respondents 2^nd set are purchasers from heirs of Ramchandra Sah who was the original defendant and decree for specific performance was passed against him. It is also apparent that the respondents 2^nd set are lis pendens purchasers. In normal circumstances if the vendors of the purchasers are on record to protect their interest, there would have arisen no need to induct the respondents 2^nd set as parties. But in the present facts and circumstances, it is clear that the original defendant as well as his wife, who sold the suit land to the respondents 2^nd set, are no more, the miscellaneous case filed for restoration of another miscellaneous case is being prosecuted by the maternal grandchildren of Ramchandra Sah and Panmati Kuwar and grave apprehension has been shown by

¶43

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025 10/12

¶44

respondents 2^nd set that they might not be interested in pursuing the proceeding of Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017. So it is in order that the respondents 2^nd set who are purchasers, be allowed to get themselves impleaded in miscellaneous proceeding so as to protect their interest.

¶45

Moreover, Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code provides for impleadment of parties at any stage of the proceedings if presence of such person would enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Another facet is that this would also help in stopping the multiplicity of litigation. The lis pendens purchasers can be impleaded as parties as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw (supra), paragraph no. 16 of which held as under:-

¶46

“ 16 . The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a Court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the Court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, whether the transfer is of the entire interest of the defendant; the latter having no more interest

¶47

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025

¶48

11/12

¶49

in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the plaintiff. Hence, though the plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party; under Order XXII Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the Court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case.”

¶50

Similarly, paragraph no. 8 of the decision of the

¶51

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) held

¶52

as under:-

¶53

“ 8. The facts set out by us in the earlier paragraphs are sufficient to show that there is a dispute as to whether the first defendant in the suit was a party to the order of injunction made by the Court on 18-8-1992. The proceedings for punishing him for contempt are admittedly pending. The plea raised by him that the first respondent had played a fraud not only against him but also on the Court would have to be decided before it can be said that the sales effected by the first defendant were in violation of the order of the Court. The plea raised by

¶54

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.665 of 2019 dt.03-04-2025

¶55

12/12

¶56

respondents 3 to 5 that they were bona fide transferees for value in good faith may have to be decided before it can be held that the sales in their favour created no interest in the property. The aforesaid questions have to be decided by the Court either in the suit or in the application filed by respondents 3 to 5 for impleadment in the suit. If the application for impleadment is thrown out without a decision on the aforesaid questions, respondents 3 to 5 will certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights which means a multiplicity of proceedings. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that respondents 3 to 5 are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit"

¶57

Therefore, in the light of aforesaid decisions and

¶58

proposition of law enunciated therein, I am of the considered opinion that the learned trial court did not commit any error of jurisdiction and has passed a valid order which is affirmed.

¶59

Accordingly, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

¶60

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶61

balmukund/-

¶62

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	28.01.2025
Uploading Date	04.04.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 05.03.2019 of the learned Munsif-II, Siwan in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2017 allowing the petition dated 04.12.2018 filed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their addition as parties.¶24
learned Munsif-II, Siwan · 05.03.2019
Prior proceeding
Original defendant no.1 Ramchandra Sah executed a mahadnama on 27.10.1992 in favour of Devendra Ojha, ancestor of the petitioners, in respect of land of Khata No. 268, Kheshra No. 1011 for Rs. 30,000/-; Rs. 20,000/- received at execution, balance Rs. 10,000/- payable on registration within one year.¶25
Prior proceeding
Ramchandra Sah declined to execute the sale deed despite request; Devendra Ojha filed Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan for specific performance.¶25
Prior proceeding
Defendant Ramchandra Sah contested the suit; a compromise took place on 15.04.1996; the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise on 18.01.2000 and the decree was sealed and signed on 03.02.2000.¶27
Prior proceeding
The compromise decree attained finality as it was not challenged.¶27
Prior proceeding
As submitted by petitioners' counsel: after the decree in the specific performance suit, based on compromise, Ramchandra Sah handed over possession to the petitioners.¶32
Prior proceeding
Ramchandra Sah did not obey the decree and refused to execute the sale deed; Devendra Ojha filed Execution Case No. 1 of 2002 in the court of learned Munsif-II, Siwan against Ramchandra Sah.¶27
Prior proceeding
Ramchandra Sah filed Title Suit No. 48 of 2002 for setting aside the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994 and for staying Execution Case No. 1 of 2002.¶27
Prior proceeding
Devendra Ojha entered appearance in Title Suit No. 48 of 2002, filed his written statement on 05.03.2003 and a separate petition under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC on 03.07.2003 praying dismissal of the suit as not maintainable.¶27
Prior proceeding
Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was filed for cancellation of the compromise decree of Title Suit No. 331 of 1994.¶27
Prior proceeding
Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 was dismissed due to non-prosecution vide order dated 02.02.2017 by the learned Munsif-II, Siwan.¶27
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: during pendency of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004, Ramchandra Sah died leaving behind his wife Panmati Kuwar, who was substituted in his place.¶35
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: in 2010 respondent no.7 (Bijay Kumar Sah) purchased land from Panmati Kuwar vide registered sale deed dated 01.11.2010.¶35
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: one Laxmi Devi, wife of Sanwaliya Sah, had earlier purchased land from Ramchandra Sah and sold it to Sumitra Devi, wife of respondent no.7.¶35
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: in 1996 Ramchandra Sah sold 3 bigha 6 katha of land to Rangnath Tiwari (respondent no.6); all vendees continuing in possession.¶35
Prior proceeding
Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 was filed under Section 151 CPC for restoration of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004 and is pending for disposal (narrated by the Court as filed by respondent 1st set).¶29
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: for restoration of Misc. Case No. 28 of 2004, Panmati Kuwar filed a petition under Section 151 CPC on 18.02.2017, numbered Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017.¶37
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: Panmati Kuwar died on 01.12.2018; thereafter some of her maternal grandchildren as legal heirs were made applicants in the miscellaneous case.¶37
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: further development in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017 — affidavits of respondents 2nd set filed in evidence.¶37
Prior proceeding
As submitted by learned senior counsel for respondent no.7: respondents 2nd set also filed a petition for intervention as purchasers in Execution Case No. 1 of 2002.¶37
Prior proceeding
During pendency of Misc. Case No. 8 of 2017, respondents 2nd set (respondent nos. 6 and 7) filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on 04.12.2018 for their addition as parties.¶29
Prior proceeding
Petitioners filed rejoinder to the impleadment petition on 11.02.2019 submitting that the intervenors were not necessary parties to the proceeding.¶29
Prior proceeding
After hearing the parties, the learned trial court allowed the impleadment petition of respondents 2nd set vide order dated 05.03.2019; that order is under challenge in this petition.¶29

Ramawati Kuwar v. Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramawati Kuwar v. Sanjay Kumar Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaul Mahto @ Rajkishore Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Dharmendra Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Raj Kali Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Smita Chandramani Kumar Vs Bihar College Of Pharmacy, through Chairman cum Director

Sayada Haque Vs Md. N. Rahaman

Smt. Kamini Devi Vs Ram Balak Prasad