SAVITRI DEVI versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.

SAVITRI DEVI versus DISTRICT JUDGE, GORAKHPUR AND ORS.

To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete adjudication of all questions involved, transferees (respondents 3 to 5) who acquired interests in suit property should be impleaded as parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC despite dispute over validity of transfers, as their alleged rights would otherwise require separate litigation.

Parties
Appellant: Savitri Devi; Respondent: District Judge, Gorakhpur; Respondent: Respondent No. 3; Respondent: Respondent No. 4; Respondent: Respondent No. 5
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 February 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Impleadment of Parties, Order I Rule 10 CPC, Maintenance, Injunction, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Impleadment of Parties Order I Rule 10 CPC Maintenance Injunction Multiplicity of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Savitri Devi

Appellant

District Judge, Gorakhpur

Respondent

Respondent No. 3

Respondent

Respondent No. 4

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents 3 to 5 are necessary and proper parties to the suit for maintenance and creation of charge over ancestral property.
  2. 2 Whether transfers in violation of court orders confer valid title and allow transferees to be impleaded.

Ratio Decidendi

To avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure complete adjudication of all questions involved, transferees (respondents 3 to 5) who acquired interests in suit property should be impleaded as parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC despite dispute over validity of transfers, as their alleged rights would otherwise require separate litigation.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents 3 to 5 to remain impleaded as parties in the suit.
  • No order as to costs.