A Single Bench of Justice Hari Shankar while observing that the defendant in a plaint cannot compel the plaintiff to sue the third party. He can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him, dismissed the present petition filed by the petitioner against the impugned order of the ADJ.
The petitioner in the present case filed the petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution against the order passed by the ADJ whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order1 Rule 10 was dismissed.
Facts in brief for adjudication of the present petition were that on May 6, 2012 the respondent sold his car to the appellant. According to the averments instituted by the respondent against the petitioner and from which the present petition emerges, the the delivery receipt issued by the petitioner to the respondent required the petitioner to get the vehicle transferred in the petitioner’s name and to take full responsibility for maintenance, accidents, road tax, police challans etc., in respect of the car.
It was the case of the respondent that the petitioner reneged on the said assurance and did not have the car transferred in the name of the petitioner. The respondent was apprised of the said fact when the car got involved in a fatal accident and summons from the Motor Vehicle Acts Tribunal were received by the respondent.
Consequently,
the respondent sued the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1.8 lakhs along
with interest representing the expenses that the respondent claimed to
have suffered in prosecuting the litigations which arose from the
aforementioned accident.
In pursuance of the same, the petitioner instituted an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking impleadment of the persons to whom the car was transferred after the petitioner. However, the application was rejected by the impugned order dated August 17, 2009 by ADJ.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner was preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
With respect to the imputed order passed by ADJ, the Court stated that the ADJ observed rightly that choice of persons to be sued is the prerogative of the plaintiff. And in the instant case the plaintiff chose to sue the petitioner.
It was also noted by this Court that there was no privity of contract between the respondent and Gulshan, Shamshad or Amit, who the petitioner was seeking to impede as party. The suit was directed against the petitioner, the ADJ held that impeading the others as party was unnecessary and this Court conceded with the same.
The Court further observed that the defendant in a plaint cannot compel the plaintiff to sue the third party. He can only defend the plaint qua the allegations against him. It is open to a defendant to contest his liability, qua the plaintiff, and, in an appropriate case, the defendant may also be entitled to move an application for rejection of the suit outright, if it fails to make out any sustainable cause of action against the plaintiff invoking, for the purpose, Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The Court further noted that the test for determining the parties who would be necessary or proper in a lis are by now, trite and well established. In view of the same the Court submitted that the parties against whom reliefs are claimed in the petition and parties who would be prejudicially affected if the reliefs in the petition/plaint are granted are necessary parties in the plaint. Parties whose presence is necessary in order to enable the court to meaningfully adjudicate the controversy in the plaint are proper parties.
Further reliance was placed in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay.
Thus, in view of the above findings, the Court observed that the order of the ADJ needs no interference and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments