Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
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 excerpt
The Division Bench erred in allowing amendment of the plaint as it completely changed the nature and character of the original suit for specific performance to one for declaration of title and possession; the party sought to be impleaded is a third party and does not fall within the category of 'parties to the agreement.' The proper remedy for the respondent was to file a separate suit challenging the consent decree, not to amend the existing suit.
Source excerpt
A divorced wife who has expressly waived her right to maintenance in the consent divorce decree has no locus standi or right to be impleaded as a necessary or proper party in eviction proceedings concerning premises wherein she has no contractual or statutory tenancy or sub-tenancy rights. There was no privity of contract between her and the landlady, and the absence of any provision for her residence in the decree foreclosed her claim. Neither law nor facts support her impleadment; both lower courts were correct in refusing her application.
Source excerpt
Strangers to the contract claiming independent title and possession are neither necessary nor proper parties in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale. Their addition would enlarge the scope from specific performance to a suit for title, which is impermissible under law. Only parties to the contract or subsequent purchasers from the vendor can be necessary or proper parties. The courts below acted illegally and without jurisdiction in allowing their addition as defendants.
Source excerpt
A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, after due attempts at notice, is not a nullity merely due to non-joinder of persons claiming through the original tenant as sub-tenants or otherwise. Such persons are not necessary parties; non-joinder does not make decree void or inexecutable. Issues of improper notice or non-joinder, if not affecting jurisdiction, cannot be challenged by collateral proceedings but must be addressed in appropriate appeal.
Source excerpt
Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale and acquired interest by decree—not by devolution, assignment, or creation—she is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the specific performance suit under Civil Procedure Code provisions. The dispute as to specific performance can be determined without her presence, hence her impleadment cannot be ordered.
Source excerpt
The Government's refusal to include Hindustan Steel Limited as a party and failure to consider the issue of liability for bonus or to take into account the relevant terms of contract constituted an unlawful omission to consider relevant matters and a misdirection in law. The executive order is unsustainable and must be reconsidered with regard to all relevant facts.
Source excerpt
In a writ of certiorari, not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed, but also parties in whose favour the order is issued are necessary parties. The writ petition is incompetent in their absence.
Source excerpt
Explore more
