Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajbir Sehrawat, J.
Swinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. – Respondents
CR No. 457 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-02-2022
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the Appellant.
The addition of a party under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC should not cause prejudice and should be based on the law and facts available on record.
Headnote:
Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC - Impleading Party - The court allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC for impleading the respondent as a party, considering them a proper and necessary party as per the material shown to the Court. The addition of the respondent was deemed as an extension of the existing respondents to facilitate the Court proceedings, without causing any prejudice.
Fact of the Case:
The revision petition was filed to set aside the order allowing the application for impleading the respondent as a party.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition, stating that the addition of the respondent did not cause any prejudice and that the order on the merits of the case should be based on the law and facts available on record, not the number of respondents added.
Issues: Impleading of respondent as a party, Prejudice caused by addition of respondent, Basis for passing orders on the merits of the case
Ratio Decidendi: The addition of the respondent as a party was considered an extension of the existing respondents to facilitate the Court proceedings, without causing any prejudice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajbir Sehrawat , J. (Oral) - This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2021 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, vide which the application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC for impleading the applicant/respondent No.4 herein as a party, has been allowed.
2. A bare perusal of the order impugned in the present petition shows that the added respondent has been permitted to be impleaded as a party being a proper and necessary party as per the material shown to the Court. Moreover, the added respondent is not any private person who could introduce the new defences, except those which were available to the existing respondents. Therefore, in effect, the addition of the respondent is only extension of the existing respondents; to facilitate the Court proceedings. No prejudice, as such, has been caused by the impugned order by adding one more official of respondent.
3. Needless to say that any order to be passed by the Court qua merits on any aspect in the case has to be passed as per the law and the facts available on record; and not on the basis of number of respondents added in a suit.
4. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
