Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. I r.10(2) – Court may strike out or add parties – Impleadment of necessary parties – Suit for recovery of possession by the mother – During pendency, the mother died and the son sought substitution as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff relying upon a registered Will executed by the deceased plaintiff in his favour with respect to her entire estate – Series of litigation – Pursuant to order by this Court, the appellant-son substituted as plaintiff in the suit – Thereafter application filed by the daughter of the deceased to implead herself as defendant in the suit – Impleadment application allowed by the courts below – Correctness:
Held: Entire purpose of a trial is to reach the truth of the matter and it is absolutely important that all necessary parties must be heard, before a decision is taken by the Court – Plea of the appellant that under no circumstance his sister was liable to be impleaded as a party defendant without any basis – It is based neither on logic nor on law – This Court in its Order had merely allowed the substitution of the appellant as a plaintiff – It did not say that no other person has the right to revise a claim before the Court or to contest the Will – Thus, the insistence of the appellant for non-impleadment of the sister as a defendant wholly erroneous – Order of the High Court and the trial court upheld. [Paras 11, 12]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.