PHOOL CHAND KESHWARWANI & OTHERS versus BHUNESHWAR TIWARI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Phool Chand Keshwarwani & Others v. Bhuneshwar Tiwari & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1376 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6162 (22 November 2005)

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. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This special appeal is directed against the order dated 21st October, 2005 by which the impleadment application filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7844 of 2002 has been rejected as being misconceived.

The petition had been filed by teachers for payment of salary from the State Government. The applicants/appellants filed the application for impleadment as respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 to the writ petition on the ground that they were owners of the premises in which the Institution was functioning. The learned Judge rejected the application as they were not necessary parties to the controversy involved in the writ petition.

We have heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri S.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 10 and the learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos. 11 to 14.

Sri H.N. Singh learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order dated 6th December, 2001 which was impugned in the petition by which the grant for payment of salary to the teachers was refused was passed at the behest of the applicants, as they had moved an application and, therefore, the application should have been allowed.

We have carefully perused the order dated 6th December, 2001 but do not find anything in the said order which may indicate that it had been passed at the behest of the applicants/appellants. The applicants/appellants are merely the owners of the premises in which the Institution is being run. They are not necessary parties to the dispute relating to payment of salary to the teachers of the Institution. There is, therefore, no error in the judgment of the learned Judge by which the application for impleadment was rejected.

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 22.11.2005

NSC-1376

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.