9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 1093X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bir Singh Ghuman against M/s Dau-lat Industries Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Civil Lines, Opposite Police Lines, Ludhiana in the year 1987 through its Managing Director Shri Ramesh Kumar on the basis of agreement dated 29.10.84 alleged to have been executed by the latter in his favour. 2. During the pendency of the suit, one Satish Kumar made application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the purchase of the property, he constructed one Generator room, two servant quarters, two drawing rooms, eight bed rooms, two lobbies, two stores, two kitchens, four bath rooms, one verandah and is residing there with his father and elder brother and other members of the family. Mutation has also been sanctioned in his name. In the house tax record also, he is shown as owner in possession o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with section 151 CPC for an order to be impleaded as defendant. It is this order which has been called in question by Satish Kumar through this revision. Order 1 Rule 10 CPC lays down as follows :- 10(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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is quite clear that any body who has some interest in the subject matter of the suit should be impleaded as a party as his presence will enable the Court to adjudicate upon the rival claims more effectually and completely. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in Smt. Saita Bala Dassi v. Smt. Nirmata Sundari Dass and another, AIR 1958 SC 394 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate liabilities. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability of Rs. 3,89,894/- arose against M/s Daulat Industries since before 29.10.84. He further submits that the agreement dated 29.10.84 was devised to defeat or delay the claim of the creditor i.e. the State in this case. He submits that all these points can be gone into by the court if Satish Kumar is ordered to be impl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
