KANAKLATA DAS & ORS. versus NABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.

KANAKLATA DAS & ORS. versus NABA KUMAR DAS & ORS.

Respondent No.1 is neither a necessary nor proper party for the eviction suit, as the lis is only between the landlord (appellants) and tenant (respondent Nos. 2-5), and the grounds for eviction do not require respondent No.1's participation.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Kanaklata Das & Ors.; Respondent: Naba Kumar Das & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Impleadment of Parties, Eviction, Necessary and Proper Parties
Civil Procedure Landlord Tenant Impleadment of Parties Eviction Necessary and Proper Parties

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanaklata Das & Ors.

Appellant

Naba Kumar Das & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal Against High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent No.1 should be allowed to be impleaded as co-plaintiff in the eviction suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No.1 is neither a necessary nor proper party for the eviction suit, as the lis is only between the landlord (appellants) and tenant (respondent Nos. 2-5), and the grounds for eviction do not require respondent No.1's participation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order set aside
  • Order of Trial Court restored