Full Text
Translation output
A-15
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+ CM(M) No. 101/2011 & CM Nos. 2126/2011 & 2128/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
30.08.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code in a suit filed by Sushil Kumar Jain against Rajender Kumar Gupta (seeking dissolution of the partnership in terms of the agreement dated
01.04.1990 and rendition of accounts) had been dismissed.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has pointed out that a preliminary decree had been passed and a final decree has also been passed on 27.05.2011 in terms of a compromise which has been recorded before the High Court on 20.05.2011. This petition has now become infructuous.
Dismissed as having become infructuous.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7771
% 21.07.2011
Present: Mr. Kamal Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
+ CM(M) No. 101/2011 & CM Nos. 2126/2011 & 2128/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
30.08.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the applicant seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code in a suit filed by Sushil Kumar Jain against Rajender Kumar Gupta (seeking dissolution of the partnership in terms of the agreement dated
01.04.1990 and rendition of accounts) had been dismissed.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has pointed out that a preliminary decree had been passed and a final decree has also been passed on 27.05.2011 in terms of a compromise which has been recorded before the High Court on 20.05.2011. This petition has now become infructuous.
Dismissed as having become infructuous.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
JULY 21, 2011 a
2011:DHC:7771
JUDGMENT