RAJESH Vs. HIMALAYAN TIMES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4.6.2012 of Learned ADJ whereby application U/O 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the respondent No.1, the plaintiff in the suit, was allowed and petitioner was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No.2 in the suit. CMM 913/2012No. Page 1 of 4

(2.) THE petitioner has assailed the said order alleging the same to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and also illegal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and the impugned order. The suit was filed for recovery of money against defendant Lokesh Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s Vaishali Infotech. In the written statement filed by Lokesh Chaudhary, his stand was that he has nothing to do with M/s Vaishali Infotech and had never been in business of computer parts under the name and style of this firm at the address as given by the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff discovered that defendant Lokesh was doing business in the aforesaid firm as its proprietor in the name of his brother Rajesh. This fact was discovered from the Sales Tax (VAT) record that it was Rajesh Chaudhary who was the proprietor of the aforesaid firm doing business from some other address. On this premise, he moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Rajesh Chaudhary as defendant No.2, which came to be allowed by the impugned order, which is under challenge in this petition.