<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1966 (4) TMI 82 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272883</link>
    <description>Order 1 Rule 10 permits addition of parties only where their presence is necessary to decide the real dispute; an order adding a new plaintiff and new defendants could not be sustained where the proposed joinder would not yield effective relief. A suit by or against added parties is treated as instituted only from the date of impleadment, so the mortgage foreclosure claim against them was time-barred when they were added. Because the added parties were strangers to the suit for relief and the original plaintiff had no surviving appeal, no decree in their favour could stand. The decree for the added parties was set aside and dismissal of the suit restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 18:24:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=521291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (4) TMI 82 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272883</link>
      <description>Order 1 Rule 10 permits addition of parties only where their presence is necessary to decide the real dispute; an order adding a new plaintiff and new defendants could not be sustained where the proposed joinder would not yield effective relief. A suit by or against added parties is treated as instituted only from the date of impleadment, so the mortgage foreclosure claim against them was time-barred when they were added. Because the added parties were strangers to the suit for relief and the original plaintiff had no surviving appeal, no decree in their favour could stand. The decree for the added parties was set aside and dismissal of the suit restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>