INNOVATORS RELEASES Vs. HATHWAY INVESTMENTS P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by Additional District Judge Shri Padam Kant Saxena dated February 18, 2006 allowing the application of the respondent under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby it has been substituted as a respondent in place of the original respondent.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the question whether appeal before the Additional District Judge filed by the respondent herein was maintainable or not was yet to be adjudicated upon and a date had been given for the said purpose but in the meanwhile, the court chose to allow the application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which ought not to have been done in view of its earlier order dated August 21, 2004 when it was stated that the question of maintainability would be decided first.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no infirmity in the order dated February 18, 2006. It is not in dispute that the previous respondent has transferred its publication division to the present respondent. The substitution of the present respondent in place of the previous respondent No. 2 does not in any way interfere with the question of maintainability or otherwise of the appeal pending before the Additional District Judge. As a matter of fact, it was necessary to allow the application for substitution as in the absence of the application having not been allowed, there would have been none to represent the changed status of the company. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to deal with the question of the maintainability of the suit. It will be open to the appellant to raise the plea whether original respondent No. 1 was competent to file the appeal.