M/S RUCHIR SALES v. M/S ANIL PACKAGING INDUSTRIES AND ORS

Delhi High Court · 29 Apr 2025 · 2025:DHC:3194
Tara Vitasta Ganju
C.R.P. 99/2022
2025:DHC:3194
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the petition under Section 115 CPC challenging dismissal of impleadment application, holding revision barred by proviso to Section 115 CPC and granting liberty to pursue alternate remedies.

Full Text
Translation output
C.R.P. 99/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.04.2025
C.R.P. 99/2022
M/S RUCHIR SALES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manjul Mayank Shukla, Advocate
VERSUS
M/S ANIL PACKAGING INDUSTRIES AND ORS .....Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
JUDGMENT

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] seeking to challenge an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, an Application filed by Petitioner for impleadment of Respondent No.2 was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly concedes that, after the hearing on the last date, a revision petition will not be maintainable before this Court in view of the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC and he is required to take an alternate remedy. C.R.P. 99/2022

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

4. The Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The liberty as sought for is granted.

5. It is clarified that the Court has not examined the matter on merits. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.