SIDHARTH Vs. SHANKERDAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Pali dated September 16, 1992 by which he has rejected the application of the Petitioner moved under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code the facts of the case giving rise to This revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) In April 1990, the plaintiff non-Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against the defendant/non-Petitioner No. 2 for injunction with the prayer that the defendant be restrained from terminating/cancelling the retail outlet dealership granted to him in the year 1976 for the village Ramasia (Pali). By its letter No.1889 dated March 26, 1990, the defendant intimated the plaintiff that the said dealership was granted in the joint names of the plaintiff and Sidharth Charan, without prior permission the plaintiff has effected change in the Constitution of his firm against Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) and 7(a) and 7(b) of letter dated May 11, 1976 by which the retail outlet dealership was granted. On this ground the defendant intends to terminate/cancel the dealership and this action has been taken at the instance of Sidharth Charan (Petitioner). The retail outlet dealership was not in fact granted in the joint names of the plaintiff and Sidharth Charan, it was granted in his name only and licence was also obtained by him from the District Magistrate and Collector, Pali in his name and since the year 1976 he is operating the same in the name and style of Pali Filling station, G.T. Road, Ramasia, Pali which is a proprietorship firm and is exclusively owned by him.

(3.) The Petitioner moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party in the suit with the averment that the said dealership was obtained in the joint names of the plaintiff and the Petitioner, he is a necessary party in the suit and he has not been impleaded by the plaintiff in the suit to cover up his fraud. The plaintiff filed its reply seriously opposing it. He has averred in it that the dealership was obtained by him in his exclusive name, the Petitioner is in the Indian Administrative Service since the year 1983, he is at present posted in West Bengal and at his instance the said action has been taken by the defendant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the application by its order under challenge.