LORD KRISHNA AND COMPANY Vs. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Upadhyaya (AOR No.A/A 1423/2012) holding brief of Shri S.K. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Satendra Tripathi, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.1, Ghaziabad Development Authority and Shri Kushagra Vaibhav Singh, holding brief of Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.2, Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad.

(2.) This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dtd. 16/8/2022 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Ghaziabad in Original Suit No.348 of 2017 as well as the order dtd. 15/2/2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Ghaziabad in Civil Revision No.56 of 2022.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner filed a suit bearing Original Suit No.348 of 2017 impleading the Ghaziabad Development Authority and the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad as defendants in the suit seeking a declaration that the order dtd. 21/3/2017 issued by the defendants for cancellation of the contract, which was communicated to the plaintiff-petitioner on 1/4/2017, be declared as void and ineffective. A further relief was sought for permanent injunction that pursuant to the contract dtd. 5/6/2017, the advertisements/hoardings that had been set up by the plaintiff, be not destroyed or damaged. Written statements were filed by the defendant-Ghaziabad Development Authority as well as by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad. An application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was filed by the respondent no.3/proposed defendant, M/s Media 24 X 7 Advertising Pvt. Ltd., dtd. 25/5/2022 in which they sought impleadment in the suit as a necessary party. By the impugned order dtd. 16/8/2022 passed by the trial court, the application bearing paper no.84A-1 filed by the respondent no.3 under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC was allowed. The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court in Civil Revision No.56 of 2017 in the court of the District Judge, Ghaziabad, and by means of the impugned order dtd. 15/2/2023, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.3 rejected the revision. Hence this petition has been filed.