Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 95 (PNJ)

Rajneesh Jain v. Karamjit Kaur

2013-02-01

DAYA CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, application filed by the petitioners-defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The only ground which has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier there was an agreement to sell with the persons to be impleaded as party in the suit and they are relevant to be impleaded as parties for just decision of the case. 3. Admittedly, the suit for recovery was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents and the present petitioners are defendants in the suit. It is not a case that application for impleadment has been filed by those persons, who were party to the earlier agreement. The present application has been filed by defendants-petitioners to implead them as party. Admittedly, no claim has been filed against other defendants and hence, they cannot be considered as necessary party. While dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, following observations has been made by the trial Court, which is reproduced as under:- “xxx xxx xxx After hearing Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings of the parties that the plaintiff is dominance litus. However, no claim is claimed against other defendants so he cannot be considered as necessary party, merely on the basis of earlier agreement executed between the parties. Moreover, the proposed defendants themselves did not file the application for their impleadment. It is defendants No.1 to 3, who filed the present application for impleading themselves. So they have no right to file the application U/o 1 rule 10 CPC on behalf of other defendants. The necessary party to the suit is the party without which the matter in controversy cannot be decided properly. So I do not find any merit in the application and I am of the considered view that application did not pass the test of necessary party as enshrined in the order 1 rule 10 CPC. So application is dismissed.” 4. The necessary party to the suit is the party without which the matter in controversy cannot be decided properly. So I do not find any merit in the application and I am of the considered view that application did not pass the test of necessary party as enshrined in the order 1 rule 10 CPC. So application is dismissed.” 4. In view of the finding recorded by the trial Court and also the fact that those persons are not necessary party as that was separate cause of action and the present suit is only for recovery against defendants-petitioners, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order and the revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.