U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & OTHERS versus ZAKIR HASAN & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Others v. Zakir Hasan & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 46 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 13344 (1 August 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.Janardan Sahai,J

A suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 against the U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. Sri Ranjeet Saxena counsel for the applicants stated that it was a suit for declaration but it appears that the statement is not correct and actually it was a suit for injunction. The application filed by the Power Corporation for amendment has been rejected in part by the court below. It was submitted by Sri Ranjeet Saxena that the papers regarding the property are lying with the Executive Engineer, Roorkee who is under the Uttranchal Power Corporation and  therefore Uttranchal Power Corporation ought to have been impleaded as a party. In my opinion this contention has no merit. The parties required to be impleaded are either necessary or proper parties. Necessary party is one in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed or  against whom relief has been sought which in this case is the U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. No relief has been sought against the Uttaranchal Power Corporation.  A proper party is one whose presence is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute.  The mere fact that the papers are with the Executive Engineer, Roorkee which is under the Uttranchal Power Corporation is no ground for permitting the amendment that the suit is bad for nonjoinder. It appears from the order of the trial court that earlier an application for impleadment was filed which was rejected by order dated 14.11.1106. It has also been observed by the trial court that evidence of some witnesses has been recorded.

No other contention has been  raised by Sri Ranjeet Saxena. Dismissed.

Dt 1.8.07sm

cr 46/07

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.