Deputy Registrar Of Chits Competent To Act As Arbitrator And Issue Recovery Certificates; Not Limited To Registrar Alone: Telangana High Court Custody With Biological Mother Presumed Lawful; Writ Of Habeas Corpus Not A Remedy To Enforce Foreign Court’s Return Orders: Bombay High Court Ocular Testimony Of Victim Prevails Over Medical Evidence In Rape Cases If Found Credible: Allahabad High Court Condonation Of Delay Should Follow Justice-Oriented Liberal Approach, Unintentional Delay Shouldn't Block Justice: Calcutta High Court Digital Banking Fraud: Clicking Suspicious Links Constitutes Customer Negligence; Liability Cannot Be Fastened On Bank Without Forensic Evidence: Delhi High Court Vexatious Matrimonial Complaints Filed As Counterblast To Divorce Is Abuse Of Process; Allegations Against In-Laws Must Be Specific: Gujarat High Court Sale Deed Executed By Son During Father's Lifetime Based On Manipulated Records Is Void Ab Initio: Karnataka High Court Charge Sheet E-Filed After Court Hours Deemed Filed Next Day; Accused Entitled To Default Bail: Kerala High Court Landowners Can't Use Antedated Stamp Papers To Defeat Ceiling Limits; Section 22 Land Reforms Act Prevails Over Registration Act: Madras High Court Rajasthan High Court Orders Tehsildar To Personally Pay ₹2 Lakh Compensation For 53-Day Illegal Detention Despite Suspension Of Sentence Mere Existence Of Dargah Doesn't Grant Jurisdiction To Waqf Board; Statutory Survey Under Sections 4 & 5 Is Mandatory: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Sets Aside Interim Stay On Delhi Race Club Eviction; Says Courts Can't Halt Statutory Proceedings Without Recording Finding On Prima Facie 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