MANJULA MEHTA Vs. ANIL CHAJJED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioners ­ Manjulata Mehta and Bhagwat Singh Mehta against Shri Anil Kumar Chajjed and others aggrieved by the order Annex.7 dated 18/5/2010 passed by the learned trial court allowing the application for impleadment filed by one Mr. Ashok Chordia, Director of the UTDC Company, Jaipur, who is also respondent no.4 in the present writ petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs, Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat submitted that in similar suit filed by the present plaintiff- petitioners for the same suit property for different flats in one similar writ petition, namely SBCWP No.6143/2010 ­ Manjulata Mehta & Anr. vs. Smt. Mala Ganju & anr., this Court has allowed the writ petition on 16/4/2012 and the application filed by the applicant, Ashok Chordia under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was rejected holding that the said Ashok Chordia has no right of say in the present eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs. He also submitted that in yet another writ petition filed by the petitioners, namely SBCWP No. 2619/2012 ­ Manjulata Mehta & anr. vs. Somnath Nayyer decided on 30/3/2011, another coordinate bench of this Court also similarly held that since no relief was claimed in the suit against said Shri Ashok Chordia, his impleadment in the present suit was not necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the SLP filed by the respondent against the said order of the coordinate bench was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in the order passed by this Court in the present writ petition on 17/7/2012 for which the learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate sought time to verify this fact but no such rebuttal was produced by him.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M.R.Singhvi, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Rajesh Panwar submitted that on the last occasion before the coordinate bench of this Court on 21/2/2013, learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to file affidavit along with copy of the resolution (sic ! Dissolution) deed of the firm and copy of the same may be supplied to learned counsel for the respondents and since he has not filed any such affidavit, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for want of compliance on his part. On the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petition is also squarely covered by the afore cited two decisions of this Court between the same parties on the same issue, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. M.R.Singhvi had nothing to controvert the same. About filing of the affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat submitted that there was no question of dissolution of a limited company known as UTDC and the dissolution of the company, even if it has happened at the hands of Registrar of Companies, that has no relevance in the present matter and Mr. Ashok Chordia, so called Director of the Company, cannot have any say in the matter in the present suit filed by the plaintiffs for eviction. He reiterated that the present writ petition also deserves to be similarly allowed as the two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners have already been allowed as aforesaid by this Court.