DHANESHWAR Vs. MEHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed on the application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC as well as application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC granted by the trial Court directing the plaintiff to implead nine persons as defendants.

(2.) Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner, would submit that the plaintiff has already closed his evidence and the defendants cannot be allowed to bring the documents on record and the said persons are neither proper nor necessary party.

(3.) Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for respondents/defendants No.1 to 6, would support the impugned order and would submit that those nine persons are necessary party in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and others, (2005) 6 SCC 733.