SUNEAL MANGAL Vs. PRIME MAXI MALL MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the plaintiff seeking impleadment of one of the directors of the defendant no.1, as a party to the present suit.

(2.) THE foundation which has been laid in this application for impleading one of the directors as a party to the suit is that the agreement dated 4.5.2005 was signed by the proposed defendant as a director of defendant no.1 and therefore, he would be a necessary party and secondly that the plaintiff has placed some documents on record, exchanged between the plaintiff and the proposed defendant, which bear the signatures of the proposed defendant and the same cannot be proved till the time the said director (proposed defendant) steps into the witness box, in his personal capacity and not as a director of the defendant company.

(3.) RELIANCE is also placed on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. reported at JT 1992 (2) CC) 116 and more particularly paragraph 6, in support of his argument that though the proposed defendant may not be a proper party, but he is surely a necessary party and his presence therefore is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in these proceedings. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: