Case Summary
This case involves a petition to remove the third defendant from a civil suit. The plaintiff argues that the third defendant is a necessary party due to ongoing disputes over a property in connection with the suit.
Judgment Outcome
Judgment Favored
Defendant
Relief Granted
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The petition to remove the third defendant from the suit was dismissed, as the court found that the third defendant was a necessary party for the effective adjudication of the case.
Key Reasoning:
The court determined that the third defendant's presence was essential for resolving the issues at hand in the suit.
The court determined that the third defendant's presence was essential for resolving the issues at hand in the suit.
Why Defendant Won:
The court determined that the third defendant's presence was essential for resolving the issues at hand in the suit.
The court determined that the third defendant's presence was essential for resolving the issues at hand in the suit.
Supporting Evidence
The court stated that without deciding on the question whether plaintiff has any right to obtain the said articles in the plaint B schedule property belonging to 3rd defendant, the suit cannot be decided effectively.
Judgment Evidence:
In the result, 1) The above petition is dismissed.
Parties Involved
Parties
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Anoop D
- Party Age
- 34
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- D D Diamond Valley Apartment Owners Association
- Party Age
- 37
- Relation
- Represented by
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Party Name
- Unnikrishnan P P
- Party Age
- 62
- Relation
- S/o
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Party Name
- Sreenivasan P P
- Party Age
- 68
Plaintiffs Documents
Defendants Documents
Advocates
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- N S Ajay
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Babykuttan K C
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Udayakumar P P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Jaya D
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Varghesekutty K P
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Neeraj T N
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- N J Netto
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Arun T S
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- B Surjith
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Rahana Jose
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Lijo Joseph
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Plaintiff
- Advocate Name
- Akshaya Reghu
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- B Deepak
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
- Party Role
- Defendant
- Advocate Name
- Karthik Bhavadasan
- Appearance Type
- Main Counsel
Reliefs
Relief Type:
Other
Outcome:
Refused
Description:
Petition to delete the 3rd defendant from the party array.
Evidence:
Therefore he cannot be deleted from the party array. Accordingly I find no merit in the above petition.
Documents & Evidence
Document Type:
Commission Report
Submitted By:
Court
Relevance:
The commission report mentioned articles belonging to the plaintiff in the plaint B schedule property.
Reference:
Document Type:
Oral Evidence
Submitted By:
Unknown
Relevance:
The court considered oral arguments from both sides.
Reference:
Case Classification
Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Other Civil Cases
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Case Code
Case between Anoop D vs Sreenivasan P P et al regarding deletion of a party from a civil suit.
Case Code Year
Case between Anoop D vs Sreenivasan P P et al regarding deletion of a party from a civil suit.