SANUJ BATHLA Vs. MANU MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, Petitioners seek to challenge an order dtd. 27/7/2018 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the Petitioners under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit from the array of parties. Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 were Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, when originally filed and Respondent No. 1 was the Plaintiff, while Respondent No. 2, the Company of which the Petitioners were Directors, was Defendant No. 1. The parties are being referred to as per their litigating status before the Trial Court. Originally, Petitioners herein were Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the suit, however, vide order dtd. 20/2/2015, Defendant No. 2 namely, Sh. Varun Malhotra was deleted from the array of parties and as per the amended memo of parties, Petitioners are now arrayed as Defendant Nos.2 and 3 and are so referred, hereinafter.

(2.) The facts are in a narrow compass and are as follows:

(3.) It was contended by Mr. Naresh Thanai, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order is unsustainable in law as the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there were no allegations against Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the plaint and a bare reading of the plaint would show that Plaintiff was seeking to recover an amount, which was allegedly given to the Company at the highest, at the request of the said Defendants. It was argued that there was no contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as the alleged loan was given by an Account Payee cheque in favour of the Company.