Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Poonam Rani Alias Kaushalya Devi &Anr vs M/S. Bishan Lal Mundara & Ors on 17 July, 2012
Author: R.S. Chauhan
Bench: R.S. Chauhan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9903/2008
Poonam Rani @ Kaushalya Devi & Anr.
V/S
M/s Bishan Lal Mundara & Ors.
Date of Order :: 17th July 2012
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN
Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Jain, for the respondents.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order, dated 1.12.2008, passed by the Additional District Judge, Raisingnagar, whereby the learned judge has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents, M/s Bishanlal Mundara & Sons and others, had filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 3,85,000/- against firm, M/s Rohini Trading Company, and its proprietor, respondent No.3, Pravin Kumar. In the plaint, he has claimed that plaintiff-firm is having business transaction with the defendant-firm, and a sum of Rs. 2,92,019/- was due as principal amount and a sum of Rs. 29,213/- was due 2 as interest thereon. Although the due amount is shown against the firm, defendant Nos. 1 and 3 have been shown as proprietors of the said firm. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., wherein they had claimed that they are not concerned with the defendant-firm. Therefore, their names may be struck off from the array of the party defendant. However, vide order, dated 1.12.2008, the learned Judge has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition before this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the impugned order is a non- speaking order, as the learned Judge has not given any reason for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has pleaded that the learned Judge has assigned reasons for rejecting the application. Therefore, he has supported the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has merely considered para 2 of the plaint. The learned Judge claims that "he is convinced that the petitioners are necessary parties to the suit." However, the learned Judge has not even bothered to reproduce para 2 of the plaint in the impugned order. 3 Moreover, he has failed to give any reasons whatsoever for concluding that the petitioners are, indeed, necessary parties in the suit. Thus, obviously the said order is a non- speaking one. Considering the fact that order is appealable one, the learned Judge was required to reveal the reasons were kept in his mind for dismissing the said application. But, he has failed to do so. Hence, the impugned order is certainly unsustainable.
Para 2 of the plaint is reproduced as under:
2. यह क फर व द व फर पत व द रधय वय प र सबध थ । फर पत व द प प ईट पत व द न.2 ह । पत व द गण न.2 4 न अपन वयवह स हरश ह यह दश य एव फर व द प प ईट एव ध यह ववश स ददल य क व फर पत व द न र स फर व द सथ ज भ, वयवह ग- उनस व ह प स जजमरव हग- । उन इस, आश सन एव ववश स आध प फर व द न उनस वयवह न सव, क य । सरस पत व द गण इस,ललय फर5 रधय चल पतय वयवह ललय प बनद ह औ इस,ललय उनह पक र; दर बन य गय ह ।
A bare perusal of the para reveals that only claim made against the petitioners is that through their conduct, they had convinced the plaintiff that they shall be liable for all the acts. However, this is too vague a statement. Considering the fact that according to the plaintiff, respondent No.4, Pravin Kumar is said to be proprietor of the firm, thus, obviously he would be responsible for the 4 acts of the firm. Therefore, it seems that the petitioners are being roped in without any cogent reason. Thus, they do not appear to be necessary party to the suit. After all, they do not even stand as guarantor for payment of the amount due.
For the reasons stated above, this petition is, hereby, allowed. The order dated 1.12.2008 vis-a-vis the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C., is quashed and set aside. The application is, hereby, accepted and it is directed that the name of the petitioners as defendant No.3 and 4 in the plaint shall stand deleted from the array of the party defendant in the suit.
(R.S. CHAUHAN)J. arti sr.no.38