Full Text
Translation output
A-144
% 16.09.2011
Present: Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
+ 17329/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1078/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 1078/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
28.04.2011 vide which application filed by the plaintiff Nos. 2 and
3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking a prayer to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 whose interest was now adverse to the interest of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 be transposed as a defendant. The averments in this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code specifically states that the plaintiff has entered into a deal with the defendant both have joined hands to defeat the purpose of filing of this suit. Further contention is being that the plaintiff No. 1 has filed a suit against the present applicants and has changed the stand taken by him in the said suit. These contentions had been vehemently opposed by the defendant in his reply. Impugned order has noted that the strength of the application of the petitioner was bordered on Suit No. 382 titled as 'Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ashok
Kumar" which suit had been dismissed in default on 04.12.2007; that suit has admittedly not been revived; impugned order has
/
2011:DHC:19486 been passed on 28.04.2011. , Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code allow the court to transpose a party; add or delete, if it is necessary to resolve the controversy in the suit or for the determination of the real matter in the dispute; no such ground is made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the court that the stage of the suit is for the evidence of the parties. Plaintiff
No. 1 is yet to come into the witness box; this by itself shows that the apprehension of the petitioner is pre-mature Impugned order warrants no interference.
Petition is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:19486
% 16.09.2011
Present: Mr. Rajesh and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner.
+ 17329/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1078/2011
*
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM (M) No. 1078/2011
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
28.04.2011 vide which application filed by the plaintiff Nos. 2 and
3 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking a prayer to the effect that plaintiff No. 1 whose interest was now adverse to the interest of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 be transposed as a defendant. The averments in this application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code specifically states that the plaintiff has entered into a deal with the defendant both have joined hands to defeat the purpose of filing of this suit. Further contention is being that the plaintiff No. 1 has filed a suit against the present applicants and has changed the stand taken by him in the said suit. These contentions had been vehemently opposed by the defendant in his reply. Impugned order has noted that the strength of the application of the petitioner was bordered on Suit No. 382 titled as 'Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Ashok
Kumar" which suit had been dismissed in default on 04.12.2007; that suit has admittedly not been revived; impugned order has
/
2011:DHC:19486 been passed on 28.04.2011. , Provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code allow the court to transpose a party; add or delete, if it is necessary to resolve the controversy in the suit or for the determination of the real matter in the dispute; no such ground is made out.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the court that the stage of the suit is for the evidence of the parties. Plaintiff
No. 1 is yet to come into the witness box; this by itself shows that the apprehension of the petitioner is pre-mature Impugned order warrants no interference.
Petition is dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 rb
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:19486
JUDGMENT