Full Text
Translation output
2^
A-ll
% 04.8.2011
Present: Mr.Vineet Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajeev Sukla, Advocate for respondent no.l.
Mr.M.L.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.2.
+CM(M) No.161/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
02.11.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicants Amit
Grover and Rupika Grover seeking impleadment in the suit proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of this petition. Admittedly the suit pending in the trial court is by a registered partnership firm; along with the plaint Form A giving details of the partners had also been filed. Defendant is contesting the suit. The contention of the petitioners Rupika Grover and Amit
Grover is that they are also necessary parties being partners of the said firm. It is pointed out that the trial court has not appreciated the order of the High court dated 31.5.2005 passed in OMP
No. 113/2005 in its correct perspective. This was only an interim arrangement and the rights of the applicants namely Rupika
Grover and Amit Grover had not been washed away. It is pointed out that admittedly the parties have gone before the Arbitrator for adjudication of their disputes and the Award of the Arbitrator i
I dated 7.4.2011 is to the effect that 60% of the amount which shall
2011:DHC:8799 y"" - be recovered from the defendant in the said suit will be the share of the applicants. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he apprehends a situation that if the plaintiff does not deliberately follow up the suit and the suit is dismissed; in such an eventuality he shall also lose his claim.
Arguments have been refuted. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that under the Partnership Act a firm is duly represented by one partner and the details of the other partners have also been annexed alongwith the plaint which has been filed along with the plaint. Applicants are not a necessary party; in fact it is a clear case of connivance of the appHcants with
\ the defendant as the counsel for the applicants and the counsel for the defendant is one and the same and in fact the applicants in a criminal proceedings had made a statement that no amount is in fact is due from the defendant; they would in fact be supporting the stand of the defendant which will work to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Perusal of the record shows that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Interference is called for under Article 227 of
I the Constitution of India only if there is a patent illegality or an irreparable injustice had been suffered by the litigants before this
Court. No such case is inade out. The plaintiff firm is a duly registered partnership firm; details of its partners have also been detailed in the plaint. The order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the
High court in OMP No.113/2005 had in fact excluded the petitioners on almost all counts. Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 04, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
A-ll
% 04.8.2011
Present: Mr.Vineet Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajeev Sukla, Advocate for respondent no.l.
Mr.M.L.Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.2.
+CM(M) No.161/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
02.11.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicants Amit
Grover and Rupika Grover seeking impleadment in the suit proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed. This order is the subject matter of this petition. Admittedly the suit pending in the trial court is by a registered partnership firm; along with the plaint Form A giving details of the partners had also been filed. Defendant is contesting the suit. The contention of the petitioners Rupika Grover and Amit
Grover is that they are also necessary parties being partners of the said firm. It is pointed out that the trial court has not appreciated the order of the High court dated 31.5.2005 passed in OMP
No. 113/2005 in its correct perspective. This was only an interim arrangement and the rights of the applicants namely Rupika
Grover and Amit Grover had not been washed away. It is pointed out that admittedly the parties have gone before the Arbitrator for adjudication of their disputes and the Award of the Arbitrator i
I dated 7.4.2011 is to the effect that 60% of the amount which shall
2011:DHC:8799 y"" - be recovered from the defendant in the said suit will be the share of the applicants. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he apprehends a situation that if the plaintiff does not deliberately follow up the suit and the suit is dismissed; in such an eventuality he shall also lose his claim.
Arguments have been refuted. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that under the Partnership Act a firm is duly represented by one partner and the details of the other partners have also been annexed alongwith the plaint which has been filed along with the plaint. Applicants are not a necessary party; in fact it is a clear case of connivance of the appHcants with
\ the defendant as the counsel for the applicants and the counsel for the defendant is one and the same and in fact the applicants in a criminal proceedings had made a statement that no amount is in fact is due from the defendant; they would in fact be supporting the stand of the defendant which will work to the detriment of the plaintiff.
Perusal of the record shows that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity. Interference is called for under Article 227 of
I the Constitution of India only if there is a patent illegality or an irreparable injustice had been suffered by the litigants before this
Court. No such case is inade out. The plaintiff firm is a duly registered partnership firm; details of its partners have also been detailed in the plaint. The order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the
High court in OMP No.113/2005 had in fact excluded the petitioners on almost all counts. Impugned order suffers from no infirmity.
Dismissed.
AUGUST 04, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JUDGMENT