Savita Bhanot vs Bidhi Chand And Another on 6 August, 2009

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                   C.R.No.456 of 2009.
                                   Decided on August 06, 2009.

Savita Bhanot

                                                           .. Petitioner

                 VERSUS

Bidhi Chand and another.

                                                       .. Respondents

                       ***

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI


PRESENT          Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate,
                 for the petitioner.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Bidhi Chand has filed a suit for permanent injunction

against Rakesh Bhanot, restraining him to interfere in the peaceful

possession of the plaintiff over the shop/property in dispute and also

for restraining him from interfering in the business affairs of M/s

Kamla Sweet Shop. The petitioner claiming herself to be a partner on

the basis of partnership deed dated 01.04.2004, seeks to be

impleaded as a party in the litigation by filing an application under

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The said application has been dismissed by

the trial Court on the ground the plaintiff-respondent has not sought

any relief against the petitioner and that the suit for injunction can be

decided without presence of the petitioner, as such, she is not proper

or necessary party.

… 1
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rights of

the petitioner on the basis of her share would be prejudiced in case

she is not permitted to be impleaded as a party. Counsel for the

petitioner has relied upon an affidavit dated 28.03.2008, alleged to

have been executed by Bidhi Chand, admitting that the petitioner is

still a partner in the partnership Concern and he has admitted his

pecuniary liability in the said affidavit Annexure P-4 (two leaves).

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as

the counsel for the respondents.

Since the plaintiff-petitioner who is dominus litus

has not raised any dispute pertaining to the partnership Concern and

has caused no prejudice, in any manner, to the rights, if any,

accruing from the terms of the Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2004, it

will not be expedient, in the interest of justice, to enable the petitioner

to be impleaded as a party by allowing her application under Order 1

Rule 10 CPC.

No ground is made out for interfering in the

impugned order dated 17.12.2008. The petition is dismissed without

prejudice to the rights of the petitioner accruing to her through the

alleged Partnership Deed dated 01.04.2004.

Any observation made in this order will not prejudice

the rights of the parties in the alleged Partnership Deed.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
August 06, 2009.

rka

… 2
… 3
… 4