https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313665 The Bombay HC allowed petitioners' application for impleadment as defendants in a specific performance suit. The trial court had initially refused impleadment despite finding merit in petitioners' case based on inventory proceedings showing applicant as heir to the suit property. The HC held petitioners were proper parties under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC, enabling complete adjudication of the controversy regarding specific performance relief. The court distinguished adverse precedents, noting this case wouldn't enlarge the suit's scope and petitioners had semblance of title. Section 19 of Specific Relief Act didn't bar impleadment as it merely enumerates parties against whom specific performance can be enforced. en-us Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Apr 2024 15:10:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313665 The Bombay HC allowed petitioners' application for impleadment as defendants in a specific performance suit. The trial court had initially refused impleadment despite finding merit in petitioners' case based on inventory proceedings showing applicant as heir to the suit property. The HC held petitioners were proper parties under Order I, Rule 10(2) CPC, enabling complete adjudication of the controversy regarding specific performance relief. The court distinguished adverse precedents, noting this case wouldn't enlarge the suit's scope and petitioners had semblance of title. Section 19 of Specific Relief Act didn't bar impleadment as it merely enumerates parties against whom specific performance can be enforced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313665