Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kehar Singh vs Daya Kishan Gill And Another on 28 July, 2022
CR-8957-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -1-
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
I. CR-8957-2017 (O&M)
Reserved on : July 15, 2022
Date of Pronouncement: July 28, 2022
Kehar Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
Daya Kishan Gill and another ...Respondents
II. CR-8946-2017 (O&M)
Premwati .....Petitioner
Vs.
Daya Kishan Gill ...Respondent
III. CR-225-2018 (O&M)
Shyam Singh Malik .....Petitioner
Vs.
Daya Kishan Gill and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
Mr. M.K. Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.
Prayer in CR-8957-2017 and CR-225-2018 is for setting aside
the order dated 6.12.2017 passed by the trial Court, whereby the
application of the petitioner(s) for impleading respondent No.2 as
1 of 5
CR-8957-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -2-
necessary party was dismissed. While, in CR-8946-2017 prayer has
been made for setting aside the order dated 6.12.2017 passed by the
trial Court, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for
amendment of the plaint was declined.
Since all the above mentioned revision petitions, being
arisen out of the impugned order dated 6.12.2017, are, hereby, decided
by one common judgment.
Brief facts of the revision petitions are as under :-
CR-8957-2017
The petitioner has invested Rs.6,00,000/- with respondent
No.-2-Company as respondent No.1 is the Director, who has come up
with a proposal of developing a group of Housing/Commercial/
Residential colony. But the respondent-Company failed to launch the
project and, therefore, the present petitioner has filed a suit for recovery
of Rs.6,00,000/-.
CR-8946-2017
The petitioner has invested Rs.7,00,000/- with respondent
No.-2-Company as respondent No.1 is the Director, who has come up
with a proposal of developing a group of Housing/Commercial/
Residential colony. But the respondent failed to launch the project and,
therefore, the present petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.7,00,000/-.
CR-225-2018
The petitioner has invested Rs.6,00,000/- with respondent
No.-2-Company as respondent No.1 is the Director, who has come up
2 of 5
CR-8957-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -3-
with a proposal of developing a group of Housing/Commercial/
Residential colony. But the respondent failed to launch the project and,
therefore, the present petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of
Rs.6,00,000/-.
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner(s) filed an
application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to array defendant No.2 as a
party in the suit. It is stated that defendant No.2 is the Company
whereas the defendant No.1 is the Director of the Company, therefore, it
is necessary to implead defendant No.2-M/s Shree Dham Developers
Private Limited, A-12, Uppel Marble, Mani Majra, Chandigarh as a
necessary party so as to enable the Court to come to a definite
conclusion. The respondent-defendant No.1 contested this application
on the ground that suit can be decided in the presence of defendant
No.2-Company and there is no requirement to implead the Company as
a party.
The Trial Court vide impugned order, dated 6.12.2017
dismissed the applications on the ground that in the applications it is not
mentioned that defendant No.1 is still the Director of the Company or
not and merely on the ground that the case is now fixed for the
plaintiff's evidence, dismissed the applications.
Counsel for the petitioner(s) has argued that in the suit it is
specifically mentioned that it is the defendant-Daya Kishan Gill, who has
enticed the plaintiff(s) to give cheques of Rs.6,00,000/- each (plaintiffs-
Kehar Singh and Shyam Singh Malik) and cheque of Rs.7,00,000/-
(plaintiff-Premwati) issued in favour of M/s Shree Dham Developers
Private Limited, which were duly accounted in the account of the
Company and were subsequently also reflected in the agreements for
the purchase of the land from the owners as per the understanding of
development/collaboration agreements. Therefore, the Company is a
3 of 5
CR-8957-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -4-
necessary party as the payments were made in favour of the Company
though defendant No.1-Daya Kishan Gill, being Director of the said
Company.
Counsel further for the petitioners has further submitted that
in para 6 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, it is
submitted by the contesting defendant No.1 that the suit is filed against
the Director of the Company, which can be sued in its own name.
It is also stated in para 5 of the written statement that the
cheques were in the name of the Company and no amount was paid in
person to defendant No.1.
Counsel further submits that in view of the said pleadings, it
was necessary for the plaintiffs to implead M/s Shree Dham Developers
Private Limited as defendant No.2, which will enable the trial Court to
come to a definite conclusion.
Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an order dated
17.5.2021 passed in CR-125-2022, wherein it is noticed that if the
foundation for seeking the necessary relief has already been laid in the
original plaint and certain facts have come to the notice of the
plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s) after filing of the written statement by the
defendant, which prompted the plaintiffs to file the applications, the
Courts in order to do substantive justice between the parties can allow
the application as the defendant will not suffer any irreparable loss if the
amendment is allowed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact,
the petitioners are not making any amendment except impleading the
Company as defendant No.2.
Counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer.
4 of 5
CR-8957-2017 (O&M) and connected cases -5-
After hearing counsel for the parties and in view of the fact
that by allowing the applications to implead defendant No.2 will not
change the nature of the case as defendant No.1 is the Director of
defendant No.2-Company to whom the payments were made and it
came to the notice of the petitioner(s)-plaintiff(s) after filing of the
written statements, these revision petitions are allowed, impugned order
dated 6.12.2017 is set aside and respondent No.2-M/s Shree Dham
Developers Private Limited is ordered to be impleaded as defendant
No.2 in the suits.
( ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN )
July 28, 2022 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
5 of 5
