FRICK INDIA LIMITED Vs. MANMOHAN KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has assailed dated 1 8th November, 2009 whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by Mrs. Sonia Singh to be impleaded as a party was dismissed. Since the application of Mrs. Sonia Singh got dismissed, it is not understood how Frick India Limited could be an aggrieved party and file the present petition. The present petition is therefore mala fidely filed just to delay the proceedings and is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.

(2.) THE respondent had let out premises to Frick India Limited. Mrs. Sonia Singh, wife of one of the Directors claimed that she was in possession of the premises and she was a necessary party. The learned ADJ observed that the agreement clearly reflected that the landlord had inducted Petitioner Company as a tenant. The agreement did not specify that it was for residence of Mrs. Sonia Singh and her husband. There was no privity of contract between the applicant and the landlord, neither the landlord had recognized applicant or her husband as tenant so she was not a necessary party and the application was dismissed.

(3.) BEING a frivolous petition it is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/ -, to be deposited by the petitioner in the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The cost shall be recovered by the trial Court from the petitioner and if cost is not paid, attachment of property and other modes of execution shall be applied by the trial Court for recovery of cost.