Madhya Pradesh High Court
Star Agriinfrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Braj Kishore Palod on 1 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7529
1 MP. No. 1555 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 1555 of 2025
STAR AGRIINFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (COMP. RETISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 1956) HAVING ITS REGIST. OFF
Versus
BRAJ KISHORE PALOD AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
This Misc. Petition, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, has been filed
against order dated 17.01.2025 passed by II District Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in RCSA
No.112/2023, by which an application to implead petitioner as defendant has been
allowed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a
suit for specific performance of contract, for return of advance amount and mense
profits against defendants No.1 to 4. Although defendant No.4 was described as
proprietor and director of petitioner company, defendant No.3 was described as
Company Secretary of petitioner company, defendant No.2 was described as director
and defendant No.1 was described as Vice President of petitioner company but
petitioner company was not impleaded as defendant. Accordingly, an application was
filed by defendants No.1 to 4 for deleting their names. By order dated 06.05.2024,
the trial court rejected the application against which defendants No.1 to 4 preferred
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7529
Misc. Petition No.3018/2024 which too was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court by order dated 13.09.2024.
3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that although the Trial Court has
rejected the application by holding that in light of judgment passed by Supreme
Court in the case of Bal Niketan Nursury School Vs. Kesari Prasad reported in
(1987) 3 SCC 587 by mentioning that impleadment of petitioner is the correction of
the nomenclature but in fact, it is the impleadment of company afresh and in view of
Order I Rule 10 CPC it has to be presumed that petitioner was impleaded on the day
when the application was moved. It is submitted that according to
plaintiff/respondent No.1, the cause of action arose on 31.12.2020 whereas the
application for impleading petitioner was filed on 25.10.2024, therefore, the
application is barred by time.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
5. The Vice President, Company Director, Owner/Managing Director were
already impleaded as defendants. It is true that petitioner has been impleaded after
the expiry of period of limitation but now the only question for consideration is as to
whether the Trial Court can condone the delay in impleading the defendant. Section
21 of Limitation Act reads as under:
21. Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant.--
(1) Where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or, defendant
is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have
been instituted when he was so made a party:
Provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a
new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it
may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be
deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a case where a party is
added or substituted owing to assignment or devolution of any interest
during the pendency of a suit or where a plaintiff is made a defendant or
a defendant is made a plaintiff.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7529
From plain reading of this Section, it is clear that if the Court is satisfied that
the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in
good faith, it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be
deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date. The trial court has held that the
impleadment of petitioner at a later stage cannot be said to be barred by time.
Although the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court is not strictly in accordance with
the provisions of Section 21 of Limitation Act but since all the office bearers of
petitioner company were already on record, therefore, it is held that the
respondent/plaintiff had committed a mistake in good faith by not impleading
petitioner company as one of the defendants. Accordingly, after taking the holistic
view of the matter, this Court is of considered opinion that the trial court did not
commit any mistake by permitting the plaintiff to implead petitioner as defendant
No.5.
6. Accordingly, order dated 17.01.2025 passed by II District Judge, Vidisha
(M.P.) in RCSA No.112/2023 is hereby affirmed by supplying additional grounds as
already observed by this Court.
7. Ex consequenti, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
pd
