9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h that the said parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to the action. A necessary party is a party in whose absence the decree prayed for cannot be granted and a proper party is a party whose presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of all issues which arise for consideration in the action. In the case at hand, the plaintiff has levelled allegations of pre-contractual misrepresentation, inter alia, by the second and third defendants. The relevant cheques are on record indicate prima facie that the cheques were issued in the name of the second defendant. Even as regards the third defendant, there are allegations that such third defendant made misrepresentations and that such misrepresentations were the basis for the pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the order passed in C.R.P.No.3584 of 2018 and, in particular, paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof to substantiate the contention that the joinder of persons who are neither necessary nor proper parties cannot be justified by falling back on dominus litus. The applicants point out that Crl.O.P.No.18099 of 2016, which was filed by the applicants herein against criminal proceedings instituted by the plaintiff, was allowed. The Special Leave Petition filed in respect thereof was also dismissed. As regards the cheques issued by the second defendant, it is stated that the plaintiff has not filed a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1891 in respect thereof. The applicants also state that the second and third defendants are not prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... misrepresentation, inter alia, by the second and third defendants. More importantly, the plaintiff has stated that the second and third defendants undertook to repay amounts due and payable under the construction agreement, and that the second defendant issued cheques in his personal name towards discharge of liability. The relevant cheques are on record and indicate prima facie that the cheques were issued in the name of the second defendant. Even as regards the third defendant, there are allegations that such third defendant made misrepresentations and that such misrepresentations were the basis for the plaintiff to enter into the construction agreement. Needless to say, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish these allegati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
