Skip to content


Tikam Singh and ors. Vs. Thakur Kishore Ramanji Maharaj, Through Sheo Gopal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All188
AppellantTikam Singh and ors.
RespondentThakur Kishore Ramanji Maharaj, Through Sheo Gopal and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, sections 32 and 108 - powers conferred by section 32 exerciseable even after an order has been passed under section 108. - .....not been served with notice of the suit, presented an application under section 108 of the code of civil procedure to have the decree set aside as against him, and it was accordingly set aside. thereupon the plaintiffs applied to have tikam's minor brother and his two minor sons brought on under section 32 of the code of civil procedure as defendants, they being all members of a joint hindu family and parties interested within the meaning of section 85 of the transfer of property act. the court made an order bringing the minors on the record. from that order this appeal has been brought. it appears to us that, as the suit was still at hearing before the court of first instance, so far as the plaintiffs and tikam singh were concerned, the court could exercise its discretion under section.....
Judgment:

John Edge, C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. A suit for saleunder the Transfer of Property Act was brought against Tikam Singh and others. A decree for sale was made. Subsequently Tikam, who had not been served with notice of the suit, presented an application under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the decree set aside as against him, and it was accordingly set aside. Thereupon the plaintiffs applied to have Tikam's minor brother and his two minor sons brought on under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure as defendants, they being all members of a joint Hindu family and parties interested within the meaning of Section 85 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court made an order bringing the minors on the record. From that order this appeal has been brought. It appears to us that, as the suit was still at hearing before the Court of First Instance, so far as the plaintiffs and Tikam Singh were concerned, the Court could exercise its discretion under Section 32 of the Code and add these defendants. We cannot say that the Court exercised its discretion wrongly. Such a case as this can but seldom occur, but in similar cases a Court should be cautious in making an order under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here the parties brought on were all in the same interest. Other cases might occur in which the interests might be conflicting. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //