AMIT KUMAR SHAW AND ANR. versus FARIDA KHATOON AND ANR.

AMIT KUMAR SHAW AND ANR. versus FARIDA KHATOON AND ANR.

Subsequent transferee pendente lite should ordinarily be allowed to be substituted as parties in ongoing appeals as their interests are substantial and they are absolutely necessary for deciding the appeal on merits; the High Court erred in rejecting the application.

Parties
Appellant: Amit Kumar Shaw; Appellant: Anand Kumar Shaw; Respondent: Farida Khatoon; Respondent: Fakir Mohammad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Substitution in Pending Second Appeals
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Substitution of Parties, Pendente Lite Transferee, Doctrine of Lis Pendens
Civil Procedure Property Law Substitution of Parties Pendente Lite Transferee Doctrine of Lis Pendens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amit Kumar Shaw

Appellant

Anand Kumar Shaw

Appellant

Farida Khatoon

Respondent

Fakir Mohammad

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Order on Substitution in Pending Second Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether application for substitution by subsequent transferee pendente lite can be rejected under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 CPC and Section 52 TPA
  2. 2 Whether transferee pendente lite is a necessary party to pending appeals
  3. 3 Whether High Court erred in treating substitution application as only addition of party

Ratio Decidendi

Subsequent transferee pendente lite should ordinarily be allowed to be substituted as parties in ongoing appeals as their interests are substantial and they are absolutely necessary for deciding the appeal on merits; the High Court erred in rejecting the application.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of Calcutta High Court dismissing substitution applications are set aside
  • Appellants permitted to be substituted as parties in pending appeals