IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7769-2018 (O&M)

Date of decision: 04.09.2025 Karan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus M/s Rajasthan Poly Pack and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Vineet Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-17233-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated

18.08.2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 18.08.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh vide which an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for deleting the names of petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 from the array of parties had been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are impleaded as defendant No.2 and 3 in the main suit and are only Directors of the company (defendant No.1) and cannot be held liable for the amount which is due from the company-defendant No.1. It is further submitted that defendant No.1 has been made party through its Managing Director Arti Singh and thus, the present petitioners are neither necessary nor proper parties and the application filed by the petitioners for deleting their names under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC deserves to be allowed and the impugned order, vide which, the said application has been dismissed, deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1:-

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that there are specific averments made against the petitioners in the suit and the plea raised in the application that there are no averments made against them is incorrect. It is further submitted that the evidence of the parties have been led and the case is now fixed for final arguments. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is dominus litis and he has specifically made averments against all the three defendants and even prayer which has been made is for recovery of the money from all the three defendants. It is argued that several documents have also been produced on record to show that the present petitioners are also dealing with respondent No.1-plaintiff. It is thus, prayed that the present revision petition be dismissed and impugned order be upheld.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. Respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.48,00,591/- as principal amount along with interest of Rs.4,32,000/- @ 9% per annum. In the said suit, there were three defendants. Defendant No.1 being a company and defendant Nos.2 and 3 being Directors of the said company. It is the defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are petitioners before this Court. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) would show that specific averments have been made by respondent No.1-plaintiff against each of the defendants including petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and in para 2 of the plaint, it had been stated that the company, through its Directors, which included the present petitioners, were regular customers of the plaintiff and they used to purchase plastic granules and scrap from the plaintiff from time to time. It was further pleaded in th