Read Order: M/s Shree Bhagwati Road Lines and Another v. M/S GBTL Limited and Others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, April 12, 2022: While considering a revision petition wherein the petitioners’ application for impleadment of a party as a defendant was dismissed by the Trial Court, the Punjab and Haryana High Court while upholding the impugned order held that in absence of privity of contract between one of the parties to the contract and the party proposed to be impleaded, the implement application cannot be allowed as the proposed party could not be construed to be a necessary party to the said Civil Suit for its proper and effective decision.

The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta held, “Even otherwise, the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit.”

By way of the instant revision-petition, the petitioners (arrayed as the third and the fourth defendants in the Civil Suit) assailed the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani (Trial Court) whereby the application moved by them under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading M/s Gill Sindu Transport Company as the fifth defendant in the Civil Suit, was dismissed. 

As per the brief factual matrix culminating in the filing of the present revision petition,  the first respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit against the petitioners-defendants and proforma respondents (second and third) (first and second defendants in the Civil Suit) for seeking a decree for recovery of a certain amount with cost. 

The petitioners moved the impleadment application while averring that the proposed defendant- Company had transported 50 bags of the fabrics of the plaintiff-Company through them and had delivered the same to the authorized consignee at Delhi and therefore, this transport Company was also required to be impleaded as a defendant for the just and proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties in the Civil Suit. Vide the impugned order, the said application was rejected. 

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the said bags of fabrics had been handed over to the said proposed defendant-transport Company for delivering the same to the authorized consignee at Delhi and the entire dispute arose because the said goods allegedly never reached their actual destination and therefore, the proposed fifth defendant was also a necessary party to effectively decide the real controversy between the parties.

This contention was not found to be tenable by the Court because concededly, the proposed defendant was not a party to the transaction in question between the petitioners and the first respondent (the plaintiff in the Civil Suit). The petitioners were to deliver the said goods of the first respondent- plaintiff Company to proforma respondents (second and third) and they were stated to have engaged the proposed fifth defendant to transport the same. Thus, the Court observed that there was no privity of contract between the first respondent-plaintiff and the said proposed defendant and it being so, the proposed defendant Company could not be construed to be a necessary party to the said Civil Suit for its proper and effective decision.

Further, the Court added that even otherwise, the plaintiff enjoys the status of dominus litis and has every right to pursue his claim against anyone he thinks fit. 

Resultantly, the revision petition in hand was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment