Dismissed

Hem Raj v. Kedar Nath and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2013CR/176/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of a necessary party at a belated stage. The court upheld the impugned order, finding no substantial prejudice to the petitioner and characterizing the petitioner's delay as laches.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order allowing impleadment is maintained; the civil revision is disposed of.

Hem Raj Vs Kedar Nath and Anr. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CR No. 176 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

CR No. 176 of 2013 Date of decision January 14, 2013

¶5

Hem Rajs/o Gurdial Mal

¶6

....... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Kedar Nath s/o Sh. Saggar Mal and another

¶9

........ Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. S. S. Swaich, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

K. Kannan, J (oral).

¶14

The petition is against the order allowing for a petition for impleadment of a party whose presence was contested by the respondent was necessary and that the plaintiff's petition must fail for failure to implead the necessary party. The objection, is although that the case was posted for evidence, it was literally a case where the case had been concluded and the parties had submitted their arguments. The impleadment could not have been ordered at such a belated stage. The plaintiff could not be lax and seek for impleadment to fill up a lacuna. The petitioner is guilty of laches and substantial prejudice would be caused if the impleadment is ordered.

¶15

If the contention of the petitioner before the court had at all times been that the party ought to have been impleaded, unless there was an issue of limitation for the impleadment itself, the order passed by the Court cannot be said to

¶16

CR No. 176 of 2013

¶17

¶18

have caused any prejudice. If the Court had found an impleadment to be necessary for complete adjudication of the disputes the petitioner cannot have an objection. Further the plaintiff who is interested in securing the relief in suit has allowed for delay in the disposal of his own case. The hardship is more to the plaintiff himself than to the defendant. In a situation where the petitioner's position itself is not put to any jeopardy. I will not find any reason to hold that there is any prejudice for the petitioner to contend for before this Court.

¶19

The impugned order is maintained. The petitioner will be at liberty to urge that the impleadment ought not to have been made, if ever the case were decided against him and use it as a ground of appeal at the appropriate stage, if he is so aggrieved.

¶20

The civil revision is disposed of with the above

¶21

observations.

¶22

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶23

January 14, 2013 archana

Hem Raj v. Kedar Nath and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Raj v. Kedar Nath and Anr.

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

Union of India Vs Kehar Singh and Ors.

Sohanbir Singh Vs P.O. Indu. Trib. Cum Labour Cour-I Gurgaon and Anr.

Brij Bhushan Bagga Vs Kulbhushan Bagga and Others

Avinash Kumar Vs Sukhwinder Kaur and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Puri & Another Vs Kiran Behl and Others

Sukhdev Singh Vs Bhagwan Singh and Ors.