9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application to be brought on record as appellant in Appeal No. 152 of 1955. - Interpretation of Civil Procedure Code regarding the right to appeal and be brought on record. - Consideration of s. 146 of the Civil Procedure Code for intervention in ongoing proceedings. - Examination of the appellant's rights as a purchaser of properties under execution of a mortgage decree. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal against the High Court of Calcutta's order rejecting the appellant's application to be added as an appellant in an ongoing appeal. The case revolves around the delay in executing a mortgage decree and subsequent attempts to sell the mortgaged properties. The first respondent obtained a decree in 1936 but failed to draw it up until 1954, leading to objections when execution proceedings commenced in 1954. The second respondent, who sold the properties to the appellant in 1952, was involved in the appeal against the execution of the decree. The appellant sought to be added as an appellant to protect her interests, alleging collusion between the respondents to defeat her rights. The main legal issue addressed was the appellant's entitlement to be added as an appellant in the ongoing appeal. The court examined the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, particularly s. 146, which allows any person claiming under another to take proceedings initiated by the original party. The court held that the appellant, as a purchaser of the properties under the mortgage decree, had the right to continue the appeal initiated by the second respondent. The court interpreted s. 146 liberally to facilitate the exercise of rights by assignees or successors. The court also delved into the merits of the case, emphasizing the appellant's substantial interest in the execution proceedings. The appellant, having purchased the properties free of encumbrances, contested the amount claimed by the first respondent under the decree. The court acknowledged the significant questions of law and financial discrepancies raised by the appellant, indicating her vital interest in the proceedings. The court concluded that justice required the appellant to be given the opportunity to protect her rights as a purchaser pendente lite. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's order and directing the appellant to be added as an additional appellant in the ongoing appeal. The court highlighted the appellant's right to intervene in the proceedings and emphasized the importance of safeguarding her interests as the purchaser of the properties under dispute. The court also addressed potential conflicts of interest between the appellants and outlined the necessary actions to ensure a fair resolution, including cost considerations.
|
