Upgrad LLM

state as a necessary party

Advocate

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   
 
Advocate

I am sorry to find no answer.
 
Reply   
 


Advocate

Is there  something wrong with the query?

 
Reply   
 
advocate

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 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate

Answer does not satisfy the query
 
Reply   
 
Advocate

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 ?

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x