O R D E R

Considered I.A.No.7516/2024.

2. Before considering the aforesaid application, this Court would like to consider the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the present case.

3. Clause 7 of the writ petition reads as under :- “7-1& 138 ds izdj.k] Jheku izFke Js.kh U;kf;d eSftLVªsV ckyk?kkV ds vafre vkn’s k izdj.k SCNIA 500621/16 dk s [kkfjt gks ldsA

7-2& ;fn ekuuh; U;k;ky; viuh Js"B cqf)eRrk l s ;fn vkSj Hkh dksbZ Js"B fu.kZ; nus k pkgs rks mlds fy, Hkh ge vkil s fouez fouarh djrs gSaA””

4. It appears that the father of the petitioner was tried for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and was convicted by order dated 26.9.2023 passed by the JMFC, Balaghat in SCNIA/500621/16. The complaint was filed against Vanganga Rice Mill as well as the father of the petitioner, who was the Proprietor of the aforesaid Mill. It appears that the father of petitioner has already approached the Sessions Court by filing a criminal appeal. The criminal appeal was filed by three persons; Vanganga Rice Mill, Maganlal Patel (father of the petitioner) as well as by the petitioner himself. By order dated 9.10.2023, the appellate court has refused to allow the petitioner to be impleaded as appellant and accordingly, it was directed that the name of the petitioner, which was mentioned as appellant no.3 be deleted from the memo of appeal.

5. The appellant was directed to explain that when a criminal appeal against the judgment and sentence order dated 26.9.2023 passed by the JMFC, Balaghat in SCNIA/500621/16 is already pending, then how this writ petition is maintainable? Then, it is submitted that by filing I.A.No.7516/2024 the petitioner wants to challenge the order dated 9.10.2023 passed by the appellant court by which the appellate court has refused to recognize the petitioner as appellant no.3.

6. Before considering the said application, this Court thinks it proper to consider the merits of this application.

7. It is submitted by the petitioner that although the Proprietor of Vanganga Rice Mill is his father but since he was operating the Mill, therefore, he wants to become an appellant. However, during the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that he is not the Director or Partner but the Vanganga Rice Mill is the Proprietorship Firm of his father Maganlal Patel.

8. Thus, it appears that the petitioner unnecessarily wants to get himself impleaded as appellant probably with an intention to seek an additional ground that in absence of any notice to the petitioner, the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable.

9. Be that whatever it may be.

10. Since the petitioner is neither the Director nor the Partner of Vanganga Rice Mill but Vanganga Rice Mill is a Proprietorship Firm of his father Maganlal Patel and Maganlal Patel has already preferred an appeal, under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that the Sessions Judge did not commit any mistake by refusing to implead the petitioner as appellant no.3.

11. Since the application for amendment is misconceived, therefore, it is rejected.

12. So far as the reliefs already claimed in this misc.petition are concerned, it is observed that since a criminal appeal against the order dated 26.9.2023 passed by the JMFC, Balaghat in SCNIA/500621/16 is already pending, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition.

13. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA)

JUDGE TG/-