<?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>1982 (10) TMI 225 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468881</link>
    <description>A party may be impleaded in appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only if its presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the existing ; the State could not be added because it was not a party to the suit or decree and sought to raise independent title issues. A person claiming to be a partner may resist execution of a decree against the firm on limited grounds such as fraud or collusion, and a prior dismissal on a technical ground does not create res judicata because there was no decision on merits. A stay order binds the trial court only after communication, so orders passed before proof of communication were not shown to be without jurisdiction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 09 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 11:55:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903650" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (10) TMI 225 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468881</link>
      <description>A party may be impleaded in appeal under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only if its presence is necessary for complete adjudication of the existing ; the State could not be added because it was not a party to the suit or decree and sought to raise independent title issues. A person claiming to be a partner may resist execution of a decree against the firm on limited grounds such as fraud or collusion, and a prior dismissal on a technical ground does not create res judicata because there was no decision on merits. A stay order binds the trial court only after communication, so orders passed before proof of communication were not shown to be without jurisdiction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 09 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468881</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>