PRINCE VIJIT SINGH v. THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has interalia observed that since the appellant/ applicant had This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by…
- Para 33. After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submit that even though the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in a partition suit, even the appellant as a defendant had a right to make submissions as a co-plaintiff, the appellant would be…
- Para 44. In the light of the aforesaid, the appeal along with pending applications is, accordingly, disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to move an application seeking transposition as a co- plaintiff making it clear that the said application, as and when moved, will…
Judgment
Through: Ms.Ramni Taneja & Ms.S.Rohini, Advs. for R-1 and 6. Mr.Abhishek Kumar Rao & Mr.Shailesh Suman, Advs. for R-2 and 3. Mr.Rajiv Bahl, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
O R D E R 25.02.2025 %
The present appeal under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, seeks to assail the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 870/1986. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, preferred by the appellant seeking his impleadment as the legal representative of his father/ plaintiff no.2 namely Maharaj Prithvi Raj, who had expired during the pendency of the suit.
From a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Single Judge has interalia observed that since the appellant/ applicant had This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2025 at 12:39:55 already been arrayed as defendant no.5 in the suit, there was no requirement for him to be impleaded once again as the legal representative of plaintiff no.2, his deceased father.
After some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant submit that even though the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that in a partition suit, even the appellant as a defendant had a right to make submissions as a co-plaintiff, the appellant would be satisfied if he is granted liberty to move an appropriate application for transposition as a plaintiff in the pending suit. He, therefore, prays that it may be made clear that in case, the appellant moves an application for transposition as plaintiff in the pending suit, the same would be considered by the learned Single Judge on its own merits and not rejected on the basis of the impugned order.
In the light of the aforesaid, the appeal along with pending applications is, accordingly, disposed of by granting liberty to the appellant to move an application seeking transposition as a co- plaintiff making it clear that the said application, as and when moved, will be considered on its own merits. REKHA PALLI, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J FEBRUARY 25, 2025 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/02/2025 at 12:39:55
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.