SHAMSUNDER HARI RAM Vs. KAMAL ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four petitions (Civil Revisions No. 2692 to 2695 of 1989 under Sec. 115, Civil Procedure Code, arise out of some what simil suits pending trial between the parties and are being disposed of through this common order, as has been done by the trial Court. Vide the impugned order the Court allowed defendant M/s Green Roadways Corporations application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for impleading M/s Rishav Traders Gulabpura (Rajasthan) as co-defendants to these suits. Briefly, the backdrop of the case is as follows :

(2.) The petitioner-firm which is carrying on business as Commission Agent at Bhatinda, booked about 400 bales of cotton with the respondent-company, for being transported to Bara Banki. Since the goods failed to reach the destination within the stipulated period, the petitioner-firm suffered damages and it is for the recovery of those amounts that the present suits were filed. These suits were concededly instituted in the year 1983 and after a protracted trial, which continued up to the date of the passing of the impugned order, i.e. 31.8.1989, the respondent-company filed the above-noted applications under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for impleading M/s Rishav Traders as defendants to these suits, on the ground that as per the stand of the plaintiff, it was this firm which had asked the plaintiff for the supply of the cotton bales and since this firm had not been impleaded as a party to the litigation, the respondent transport company's liability cannot be determined. This is according to its counsel is more so when the matter is stated to have been amicably settled between the plaintiff and M/s Rishav Traders. Though the trial Court has come to the conclusion that "all the disputes between the parties cannot be adjudicated upon effectively and completely in the absence of M/s Rishav Traders", yet it has nowhere been disclosed in the order as to how the presence of this party was necessary or relevant for the disposal of any of the issues framed in the suit or any other material controversy between the parties.

(3.) It is well laid down by now that the plaintiff is the matter of his suit and is entitled to choose his adversary and the only consequence of not impleading the necessary parties is that the suit is liable to be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find no justification, whatsoever, with the trial Court to implead Messrs Rishav Traders as a party to these suits and that too, at the fag end of the trial. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the above-noted applications of the respondent-company are dismissed. The revision petitions are allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.