Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Htl Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs . Vinod Sood & on 22 June, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
.
M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinod Sood & Ors.
Civil Suit No.12 of 2021 22.06.2023 Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.N. Singh and Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocates, for the plaintiff.
Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate, for defendants No.1 & 2.
r Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for defendant No.3. OMP No.733 of 2022 By way of instant application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicants, namely Sh. Tarun Dogra and Sh. Lalit Kumar, Directors of M/s HTL Associates (plaintiffs herein) for their substitution in place of plaintiff/company namely M/s HTL Associates Pvt. Ltd.
Before the application at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the applicants/plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that applicants do not press for their substitution, but proposed plaintiffs namely Sh. Tarun Dogra and Sh. Lalit Kumar, may be impleaded as co-plaintiffs No.2 & 3.
Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocates, representing defendants No.1 & 2 and defendant No.3 submit that since earlier application bearing OMP No.805 of 2022, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC has already been withdrawn, ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2023 20:31:25 :::CIS .
prayer made in the instant application on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff cannot be accepted. However, record reveals that earlier application bearing OMP No.805 of 2022, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was withdrawn on account of filing of the application at hand and as such, there is no impediment to accept the prayer made on behalf of the applicants for their being arrayed as co-plaintiffs No.2 & 3. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of provisions contained under Order 1 Rule 10(1) & (2) CPC, which read as under:-
"(1) Suit in name of wrong plaintiff-Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted thought a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2) Court may strike out or add parties- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name, of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added."
A bare perusal of provision contained in Order 10 (1) CPC clearly reveals that where a suit has been ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2023 20:31:25 :::CIS .
instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff on account of bonafide mistake and it is necessary for determination of real matter in dispute to add/array some person as a party/plaintiff, Court can always order addition/substitution.
r to Perusal of provision contained in Order 10 (2) CPC reveals that the Court may at any stage either upon or without the application of either party, can order impleadment of party whether as plaintiff or defendant. If it appears to the Court that presence of such persons may be necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, it can always order impleadment.
In the instant case, pleadings available on record clearly reveal that applicants, who are seeking their substitution have categorically stated in the plaint that vide agreement to sell dated 18.02.2019, suit land was purchased by them for plaintiff as its directors. Though, suit has been filed by the plaintiff-company through one of its Director Sh. Tarun Dogra, but he along with other Director Sh. Lalit Kumar has been not arrayed as co-plaintiff.
Having regard to nature of the controversy inter se parties, this Court is of the view that applicants need to be arrayed as co-plaintiffs, but their plea for substitution in place of plaintiff No.1, is not tenable.
::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2023 20:31:25 :::CIS
.
Consequently, in view of the above, prayer made on behalf of the applicants/plaintiffs as named hereinabove, for their substitution is though rejected, but they are ordered to be impleaded as co-plaintiffs No.2 & 3, subject to just exceptions.
r to Applicants/plaintiffs, as named hereinabove, may file amended memo of parties within a period of one week enabling the Registry to carry out necessary correction in the amended memo of parties.
Application stands disposed of.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge 22nd June, 2023 (reena) ::: Downloaded on - 24/06/2023 20:31:25 :::CIS