ANOKHE LAL versus RADHAMOHAN BANSAL AND OTHERS.

ANOKHE LAL versus RADHAMOHAN BANSAL AND OTHERS.

Impleadment of a legal representative of a deceased partner as a party to a suit is not permissible once the suit and appeal have concluded, since Order 30 Rule 4(2) does not independently create such a right and application for impleadment in such circumstances should be dismissed as infructuous.

Parties
Appellant: Anokhe Lal; Respondent: Radhamohan Bansal and Others; Respondent: Respondent No. 1 (son of Hanuman Prasad)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave After Revision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Impleadment of Parties, Joinder of Legal Representatives, De Novo Trial
Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Eviction Impleadment of Parties Joinder of Legal Representatives De Novo Trial

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anokhe Lal

Appellant

Radhamohan Bansal and Others

Respondent

Respondent No. 1 (son of Hanuman Prasad)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave After Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a legal representative of a deceased partner may be impleaded as a party in an eviction suit against a firm after the suit has concluded.
  2. 2 Scope of Order 30 Rule 4(2) and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding impleadment of parties.

Ratio Decidendi

Impleadment of a legal representative of a deceased partner as a party to a suit is not permissible once the suit and appeal have concluded, since Order 30 Rule 4(2) does not independently create such a right and application for impleadment in such circumstances should be dismissed as infructuous.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside.
  • No costs awarded.