Taken challenging an order impleading Bachittar Singh as a defendant. Held that new impleadment was for a necessary party, not in place of existing defendants. Petition dismissed.
Challenged revision petition 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2803 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.05.2012
Joginder Singh
... Petitioner
vs
Mukhtiar Kaur alias Muktar Kaur and others
..Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present:. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal, J.
Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the learned court below whereby Bachittar Singh has been added as one of the defendants in a suit filed by the plaintiffrespondent No.1.
The present petition has been filed by defendant No.2 already impleaded in the suit with the apprehension that Bachittar Singh has been impleaded as party in the suit in place of already impleaded defendants No. 1 and 2.
The apprehension of the petitioner is totally mis-conceived. A perusal of the operative part of the impugned order in para No.6 shows that Bachittar Singh has been impleaded as defendant in the suit considering him to be necessary party. The court has not directed that he shall be impleaded in place of defendants No. 1 and 2 already impleaded in the suit.
Dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
sharmila
09.05.2012
Joginder Singh
Mukhtiar Kaur alias Muktar Kaur
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
