B K CARGO Vs. BALJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioner had challenged the validity of the order dated 29th March, 2008 passed by learned ADJ.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for deciding this petition are that petitioner is defendant no. 2 in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,80,994/- along with interest. Petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Section 151 seeking rejection of the suit qua petitioner and deletion of the name of the petitioner from array of parties on the ground that no cause of action was revealed as against the petitioner. The application was dismissed by the learned ADJ on the ground that the contention of defendant no. 2 that there was no tripartite agreement between the parties to fasten the liability on defendant no. 2 could not be a ground for allowing the application. The transactions as alleged by the petitioner were not disputed. At the stage of considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, only the plaint has to be seen. A bare perusal of plaint would show that there was a cause of action against both the parties.

(3.) THE petitioner who filed written statement as defendant no. 2 before the Trial Court took the defence that the transactions had taken place between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and he had nothing to do with the deal between plaintiff and defendant no. 1 and he was not a necessary party. However, the plaintiff in its plaint alleged that the plaintiff had raised bills totaling to Rs. 37,98,343/- against the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 made part payment and told the plaintiff that rest of the payment would be made by defendant no. 2 since he has paid the amount to defendant no. 2 for clearing outstandings of the plaintiff. There were transactions, inter se, between defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 2 was sub-agent of defendant no. 1.