NITIN GOYAL Vs. RAMESH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of four Revision Petitions bearing No. 2575, 2625, 2577 and 2623 of 2015. Civil Revision Nos. 2625, 2577 and 2623 of 2015 are directed against the orders, whereby the applications at the instance of Misruddin for being impleaded in the suits have been allowed, whereas Civil Revision No. 2575 of 2015 is directed against the order, whereby the application at the instance of Ramesh Aggarwal and Gopal Parshad Aggarwal for being impleaded as defendants, has been allowed.

(2.) Mr. Randhir Singh Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that in pursuance to the four agreements to sell dated 25.5.2008, plaintiffs had filed suits for permanent injunction as they were allegedly put into possession by taking the aid of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The suits were instituted against M/s Bhalotya Industries Pvt. Ltd. through Director Chander Parkash Bhalotia. In Civil Revision No. 2575 of 2015, Ramesh Aggarwal and Gopal Prashad Aggarwal moved an application for being impleaded as defendants on the ground that on the date of execution of the agreement to sell, Chander Parkash Bhalotia was not even Director of the Company and he was removed in the year 1994 and, therefore, there was a collusion between the plaintiffs and aforementioned person. In fact, the erstwhile defendant had not filed the written statement and in order to wriggle out the wrath of striking of the defence, contested the suit. As regards the other three suits, Misruddin moved an application on same terms that Chander Parkash Bhalotia was not the Director of the Company, namely, M/s Global Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, his presence is essential and necessary for the adjudication of the lis.

(3.) There is no representation on behalf of the contesting respondents despite dasti service.