Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14th February, 2020
M/S EAST INDIA AUTO MANUFACTURING COMPANY (P) &
ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate (M:
9999904717).
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26th November, 2019 by which the application under Order I Rule 10 and Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed by the Trial Court. The suit is one for recovery filed by Mr. Ishwar Singh against three Defendants originally - M/s. East India Auto Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd, Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Dungarwal and his son - Mr. Kuldeep Dungarwal. The suit seeks recovery of a sum of Rs.10,38,243/- along with interest.
2. In the written statement, the Defendant No. 1 has taken a stand that it or its directors has never dealt with the Plaintiff - company and that the company is defunct. The written statement specifically avers that the invoices and bills which have been filed by the Plaintiff relate to East India Auto Manufacturing which is a proprietary firm of Defendant No.3 – Mr. Kuldeep Dungarwal. Under these circumstances, an application was moved by the Plaintiff under Order I Rule 10 read with under Order VI Rule 17 to 2020:DHC:1088 implead East India Auto Manufacturing Company with its address in Baddi, Himachal Pradesh through its proprietor - Mr. Kuldeep Dungarwal, as Defendant No.4 in the matter, which has been allowed.
3. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that though the Defendant No. 3 does have dealings with the Plaintiff, the suit was against the private limited company and the father and not against the Defendant No. 3. The Defendant No. 3 and his father are not on talking terms and thus, the impleadment is erroneous.
4. The impugned order is quite clear. In the impugned order, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that in the written statement, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 state that they have never dealt with the Plaintiff and the invoices have the Baddi address which is the address of East India Auto Manufacturing Company which is the sole proprietary concern of Defendant No.3. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has allowed the application. The observations of the ld. Trial Court are as under:
5. Thus, it is clear that while Defendants 1 and 2 are not taking a clear stand, the defendant no.3 and his proprietary concern, do appear to have some connection with the transaction. Further owing to the fact that the invoices and the bills contain the Baddi address which is the address of the proposed defendant and the name of the proprietary concern of Defendant No. 3, the impleadment cannot be faulted with. The question as to whether Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are on good terms and whether there was any business relationship with the Plaintiff and the question as to whether a decree is liable to be passed, if so against which of the defendants, is the subject matter of the suit, which would be adjudicated after evidence is adduced. At this stage, it cannot be said that the impleadment is erroneous or incorrect. The impugned order does not warrant any interference.
6. Needless to add, the observations in the impugned order and in the present order would not bind the final adjudication in the suit.
7. The petition with all pending applications is accodingly dismissed in these terms. Order Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE FEBRUARY 14, 2020 MR/A.S.