https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286060 An appeal from a decree in a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 CPC may fail for non-joinder where reversal would create inconsistent decrees over the same property and litigation. The judgment-debtor and a joint decree-holder were treated as necessary parties at the appellate stage because the decree under challenge affected rights that had been adjudicated in their presence, and an order in their absence would leave conflicting execution claims. Delay in seeking impleadment was not condoned on the basis of legal advice or good faith, since due care and diligence are required and mistaken advice is not enough unless it reflects a reasonable view. The appeal was therefore incompetent in the absence of indispensable parties. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286060 An appeal from a decree in a suit under Order XXI, Rule 63 CPC may fail for non-joinder where reversal would create inconsistent decrees over the same property and litigation. The judgment-debtor and a joint decree-holder were treated as necessary parties at the appellate stage because the decree under challenge affected rights that had been adjudicated in their presence, and an order in their absence would leave conflicting execution claims. Delay in seeking impleadment was not condoned on the basis of legal advice or good faith, since due care and diligence are required and mistaken advice is not enough unless it reflects a reasonable view. The appeal was therefore incompetent in the absence of indispensable parties. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286060