Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 04 April 2014

State as a necessary party

In a suit by by plaintiffs for a declaration that the suit way is a public path belonging to the state and to restrain the defendents from causing obstructions in the path against the right of way of plaintiffs.The defendents contend that the land in question is a private property of the defendents , in the circumstances whether or not the state is a necessary party to the suit ? The state does not obstruct the path.A well considered opinion supported by authorities from worthy experts is solicited. Thanks.

Reply Follow

5 Replies

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 08 May 2014

I am sorry to find no answer.

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 08 May 2014

Is there something wrong with the query?

Adv k . mahesh (advocate) 08 May 2014

as you said that it is a government property laid a pathway and government should be the party and they should file there counter and also defendants has to file there counter defending and prove there statement with evidences and with all this court will pass order and as the path is a obstructing plaintiff

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 11 July 2014

Answer does not satisfy the query

Shantilal Pandya ( Advocate) 20 August 2014

In continuation of above thread I further submit that if the state has been joined in the suit and the jr,court trying the suit thereby loses jurisdiction to try the suit whether the jr.court will have jurisdiction to continue Status quo order which was already operative against non state parties? so that any mischief may not be created as to status quo order in the intervening and transit period I.e transfer of case file from one court to another, what is the remedy in such a case ?