9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the violation of a court order of injunction by the defendants, application for impleading third parties as defendants, the power of the court to add parties under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C), and the necessity of impleading parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Judgment Summary: 1. The appellant filed a civil suit seeking maintenance and a charge over ancestral property. An interim injunction was granted to prevent alienation of the property. However, the defendants sold shares of the property to third parties in violation of the injunction. The trial court allowed the third parties to be impleaded as defendants based on their application. The District Judge dismissed the appellant's revision, and the High Court upheld the decision, stating that the third parties were proper and necessary parties. 2. The appellant challenged the High Court's order, arguing that the sales to the third parties were invalid due to the injunction. The Supreme Court noted the dispute regarding the defendants' knowledge of the injunction and the third parties' claim of being bona fide purchasers. The Court emphasized the importance of deciding these issues to avoid multiple proceedings. 3. Referring to legal precedents, the Court highlighted the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 C.P.C., which allow the addition of parties to ensure complete adjudication of the suit. The Court cited previous cases to support the principle that transferees during litigation have a right to be impleaded as parties. The Court distinguished a case where impleadment of assignees was disallowed due to violation of a court order, which was not applicable in the present case. 4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, stating that the impleadment of the third parties as defendants was justified in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Additionally, the Court criticized the practice of unnecessarily impleading judicial officers in writ petitions or special leave petitions, emphasizing the need to avoid disturbing the functions of the judiciary. This judgment clarifies the legal principles regarding impleading parties in civil suits, the importance of upholding court orders, and the need to prevent multiplicity of proceedings in litigation.
|
