Cs - 897/17 vs J.C.B. India Ltd on 19 August, 2017
28. Order I Rule 1 CPC embodies that all persons may be joined in
one suit as plaintiffs where any right to relief in respect of or
arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or
transaction is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly,
severally or in the alternative. Ex. P3 and Ex. D1, purchase
order of date 04.11.2006 have proved on record that the
purchase order was placed only by plaintiff no.1 who as sole
proprietor worked as government contractor in the Sikkim and
had so placed the purchase order for Track Excavator on
defendant no.1. There existed no privity of contract between
plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.1. Plaint is signed and verified
by plaintiff no.2 and supported by affidavit of plaintiff no.2.
Neither alongwith the plaint or later, any written authorisation
has been proved by plaintiff no.2, PW2 for having been so
authorised by plaintiff no.1 to sign, verify and file the plaint for
and on behalf of his father/plaintiff no.1. Neither plaintiff no.2
was an employee nor partner in the business carried on by
plaintiff no.1. In the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd.
(supra), it was held that only a person who is a party to a
contract may sue on it. Stranger to a contract has no right to
enforce the contract in personam. In the case of K. Gopalasamy
CS - 897/2017 Tashi Chopel Bhutia Vs. JCB India Ltd. & Ors. page 21 of 28
Chetty & Ors. (supra), it had been held that to enforce a contract
or set up a defence basing on the contract, there must be a
privity of contract as mentioned under Section 2(d) of the
Contract Act. No one, but the parties to the contract are entitled
under it and the contracting parties may confer rights or benefits
upon the third party in the form of promise or to perform a
service or a promise not to sue.