Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Impleadment in Representative Suit

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of applications seeking impleadment in a representative suit. The court, in its ruling, stated that a single petition cannot be maintained when multiple applications for impleadment have been disposed of by a common order. The judgment, delivered by Justice Satyen Vaidya, emphasized the binding effect of a suit's decree on all parties concerned.

Quoting from the judgment, Justice Satyen Vaidya stated, "The petitioners had filed applications for their impleadment as plaintiffs. They had not raised any grievance that the plaintiffs in the suit were not proceeding with due diligence in the suit and required substitution. The case of petitioners was that they had the same interest in the subject matter of the suit as was claimed by the plaintiffs, hence they were also required to be impleaded as plaintiffs. [...] In such view of the matter, their impleadment as plaintiffs is not warranted."

The petitioners had contended that their impleadment in the civil suit was permissible as their interest aligned with that of the plaintiffs, and granting their plea would not prejudice anyone. However, the court found no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and maintained that the suit, filed in a representative capacity, would benefit the petitioners even without their impleadment.

The judgment further highlighted that the decree passed in the representative suit would be binding on all individuals on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit was instituted. As the petitioners claimed the same interest in the suit as the existing plaintiffs, their impleadment was deemed unnecessary.

The court, therefore, dismissed the petition and any pending applications related to the matter.

Date of Decision: 13th June 2023

Himanshu Kumar and others vs Jay Prakash Bhojaki 

Latest Legal News