REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

GITA RAM KALSI Appellant

V/S

PRITHVI SINGH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KALEE COMMAR V. PRAN KISHOREE [REFERRED]
GOBIND V. TARUCK [REFERRED]
SAHURAMA IYAR V. RAM CHANDRA IYER [REFERRED]
DEOGAR SINGH V. MT. DHANTI [REFERRED]
BROJO BEHARI MITTER V. KEDAR NATH MOZUMDAR [REFERRED]
RADHA KISHUN V. KHUSHED HUSSEIN [REFERRED]
MT. MUNNI BIBI V. TIRLOKI NATH [REFERRED]
MAUNG SEIN DONE V. MA PA NYUN [REFERRED]
KIDAR NATH GOENKA V. MUNSHI RAM [REFERRED]
MUHAMMAD DIN V. HIRDA RAM [REFERRED]
PARMESHRI KUNWAR V. DHUMAN KUNWAR [REFERRED]
MAULU V. GHANAYA [REFERRED]
RAKHELDAS MUKHERJI V. KALIPADA BHATTACHARJI [REFERRED]
MAHIM CHANDRA GOPE V. SAILENDRA CHANDRA DE [REFERRED]
HAFIZ MOHAMMAD FETEH NASIB V. SIR SWARUP CHAND HUKUM CHAND [REFERRED]
SIKANDAR V. MT. KARAM NISHAN [REFERRED]
FIRM DAULAT RAM VIDYA PARKASH V. SODHI GURBAKHSH SINGH [REFERRED]
CHANDU LAL V. KHALILUR RAHMAN [REFERRED]
MONJUR MONDAL V. AHAMMAD MONDAL [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises the question whether a person who is merely a formal party to an action and against whom no relief is claimed is bound by or entitled to the benefits of the rules of res judicata

(2.) The facts of the case are simple and not in dispute. On the 22nd August, 1945 one Geeta Ram brought a suit against S. Arjan Singh defendant No. 1 for a mandatory injunction restraining him from putting up any structure on a courtyard belonging jointly to the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and requiring him to demolish any structure which had already been constructed. Defendants 1 to 7 were impleaded as defendants but relief was claimed only against defendant No. 1 and none against defendants 2 to 7. Defendants 2 to 7 failed to appear in Court and ex parte proceedings were taken against them. On the 18th June, 1947 the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, the relevant portion of which is in the following terms :-

(3.) When the plaintiff proceeded to execute the decree for the demolition of the building whcih had been constructed on the courtyard belonging jointly to the plaintiff and the defendants, Prithvi Singh and Nand Avtar Singh defendant Nos. 6 and 7 raised certain objections under section 47 and Order 9 rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The alleged that the decree was not executable against them for various reasons, among others being-

Click here to view full judgment.

GITA RAM KALSI Vs. PRITHVI SINGH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address