PUSHPA P MULCHANDANI Vs. ADMIRAL RADHAKRISHIN TAHILANI RETD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review petition has been taken out by the petitioners for review of the judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1999 by which the chamber summons was dismissed with regard to the prayer Clause (a) as regards amendments indicated in paragraphs (i), (ii), (viii), (ix) and (x ).

(2.) BY the judgment and order dated April 23, 1999, I took the view that the application made for impleading one Haresh Melwani was liable to be rejected and also held that section 21 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 could not enlarge the power of the Court with regard to condonation of delay which was considerably whittled down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 ("1996 Act" ).

(3.) MR. Bulchandani, learned Counsel for the review petitioners, contends that section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code ("c. P. C. ") enjoins that the procedure provided in the Code with regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. The only proceedings excepted by the explanation are proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. He contends that, in the absence of a specific exception as to the application of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code would squarely apply to the proceedings before the Court under the 1996 Act and, consequently, the Court was fully empowered under sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 to implead any party whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.