Hulas Ram v. Churaman alias Churani & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
order is set aside and application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff
Provisions considered
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. L r. 10; O. VI r. 17
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Thus considering the larger interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (Annexure P-4) dated 6.10.2004 is allowed. Court below is directed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the State of Chhattisgarh as respondent No.6 in the…
Judgment
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker W.P. No. 2843/2005 PETITIONER Hulas Ram VERSUS RESPONDENTS Churaman alias Churani and others ShriA.K. Prasad counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ShriArunSaoDy. AG present here has assisted the Court on being requested for ? ORDER (06.11.2013) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22.2.2005 (Annexure P-1) whereby learned appellate Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order l Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
From the fact it appears that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the private defendants and the State was defendant No.Sin the said suit. Suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 25.3.2004 against which appeal was preferred by the petitionervide memo of appeal (Annexure P-3). During the pendency of said appeal, petitioner preferred an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read implea'ding the State of with Order VI Rule 17 CPC for Chhattisgarh as respondent No.6 but by the impugned order same has been rejected holding the same to be barred by timitation. t'""" .l^'l^^itEi 11 ;:•%< a-?iti~3tK3-M i,.i| ^.!.Ui^:!..<,i£^.;i.^.: w^:x,— .••;^^'I-. —'2-—
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
Undisputedly, in the suitState of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) was defendant No.8. Though it was the fault of the plaintiff in not impleading the State as respondent in the appeal yet once the proper application was filed by the petitioner along with an application for condonation of delay, in the larger interest of justice the said application should have been allowed by the Court below as by doing so no harm would have been caused to anyone and on the contrary the State Government would be in a position to assist the appellate Court in decision of the appeal.
Operative part
Thus considering the larger interest of justice, the impugned order is set aside and application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff (Annexure P-4) dated 6.10.2004 is allowed. Court below is directed to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to implead the State of Chhattisgarh as respondent No.6 in the memo of appeal.
Since 2005 the stay is operating in favour of the petitioner, is directed to decide the First Appeal as First Appellate Court expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.
Petition is thus disposed of. Sd/- Pritiaker Diwaker Judge w'^ BjiiKjfyti i!lTi'!!Fi^'ffjtii SS.s SluSISSs
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: order is set aside and application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. L r. 10; O. VI r. 17.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.