DEVIDAYAL ROLLING MILLS versus PRAKASH CHIMANLAL PARIKH AND ORS.

DEVIDAYAL ROLLING MILLS versus PRAKASH CHIMANLAL PARIKH AND ORS.

An interlocutory application by a third party challenging title or alleging fraud in relation to an immovable property, in a matter where a Special Leave Petition was already dismissed more than 12 years earlier, is wholly misconceived and cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court under Article 136, Article 142, or Section 47 CPC. Such post-dismissal attempts by non-parties concerning transactions not germane to the original proceedings are outside this Court’s jurisdiction at this stage.

Parties
Petitioner: Devidayal Rolling Mills; Respondent: Prakash Chimanlal Parikh; Respondent: Pankaj Chimanlal Parikh; Respondent: Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd.; Applicant/intervener: Applicant Company (Jugal Kishore Gupta)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 March 1993
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Special Leave Petition / Order Dismissing Interlocutory Application Filed After Disposal of SLP
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Leave Petition, Interlocutory Applications, Execution Proceedings, Title Disputes, Fraud, Res Judicata
Civil Law Tenancy Law Constitutional Law Special Leave Petition Interlocutory Applications Execution Proceedings Title Disputes Fraud +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devidayal Rolling Mills

Petitioner

Prakash Chimanlal Parikh

Respondent

Pankaj Chimanlal Parikh

Respondent

Devidayal Rolling and Refineries Pvt. Ltd.

Respondent

Applicant Company (Jugal Kishore Gupta)

Applicant/intervener

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Special Leave Petition / Order Dismissing Interlocutory Application Filed After Disposal of SLP

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a third party can raise questions of title or fraud relating to immovable property by way of interlocutory application in a dismissed Special Leave Petition.
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court can entertain such applications under Article 136, Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

An interlocutory application by a third party challenging title or alleging fraud in relation to an immovable property, in a matter where a Special Leave Petition was already dismissed more than 12 years earlier, is wholly misconceived and cannot be entertained by the Supreme Court under Article 136, Article 142, or Section 47 CPC. Such post-dismissal attempts by non-parties concerning transactions not germane to the original proceedings are outside this Court’s jurisdiction at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Interlocutory Application No.1 of 1990 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Entire proceedings in the High Court including findings on title declared non-est and not binding on any of the parties.