Mercedes Benz India Limited and Another vs Bajaj Travels Limited

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 21.2.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh vide which application filed by the present Petitioners under Order 1, Rule 10 of the CPC (for brevity ''the Code'') for impleading M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited as parties in the suit, was dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that Respondent-Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the present Petitioners on the brief allegations that he contacted Petitioner No. 2- Defendant No. 2 for purchasing of a pre-owned Mercedes car. Petitioner No. 2- Defendant No. 2 is a dealer of Petitioner No. 1- Defendant No. 1. Hence, as per Respondent-Plaintiff, payment of? 24 lacs was made to Petitioner No. 2- Defendant No. 2 for purchasing the said car and however, payment was made through Account Payee cheque in the name of Petitioner No. 1- Defendant No. 1. Though possession of the car was also handed over to the Respondent-Plaintiff, however, later on, it transpires that the car was already hypothecated with M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited by previous owner M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and the possession of the vehicle was taken away from the Respondent-Plaintiff in recovery proceedings of the loan amount.

Suit was contested by the present Petitioners. Issues were framed by learned trial Court. Evidence was adduced by Respondent-Plaintiff. However, when case was fixed for evidence of the Petitioners, the present application for impleading M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited was filed, which was opposed by Respondent-Plaintiff. The application has been declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order by observing as under:

The present suit has been filed for the recovery of Rs. 26,50,000/- from the Defendants and para No. 4 of the plaint mentions that the Car was earlier owned by M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Defendant No. 1 had sold this Car to the Plaintiff through Defendant No. 2 and the entire consideration amount was paid through demand draft in the name of Defendant No. 1. Accordingly, there is no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd and M/s Associates Financial Services Ltd. Therefore, M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd and M/s Associates Financial Services Ltd are not the necessary parties to the suit. Hence, the present application moved by the applicant/Defendant No. 1 carry no merit and the same is dismissed.

It is pertinent to reproduce Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code, which reads as under:

Suit in name of wrong Plaintiff.-

(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as Plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right Plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as Plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.

(2) Court may strike out or add parties--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.

(3) No person shall be added as a Plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a Plaintiff under any disability without his consent.

(4) Where Defendant added, plaint to be amended--Where a Defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new Defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original Defendant.

(5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as Defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons.

Law is well settled that Plaintiff is the master of his own case. He has not sought any relief against M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited. Even if it is taken that M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd was previous owner, who got financed the said vehicle through M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and that loan was outstanding when the vehicle was sold to Respondent-Plaintiff, there is no privity of contract between Respondent-Plaintiff and M/s Sheeba Wheels Pvt. Ltd and M/s Associates India Financial Services Ltd. As per the case of the Plaintiff-Respondent, he contacted the present Petitioners only for purchasing the said car and the payment was also made to them. Vehicle was also handed over to him by the present Petitioners. Hence, he cannot be compelled to implead M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited as a parties in suit against whom he is having no claim. Petitioners may take appropriate proceedings against M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited if they are having any legal claim and cause of action against them. However, in view of these facts, Respondent -Plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead M/s Associates India Financial Services Limited and M/s Sheeba Wheels Private Limited as parties in the suit against whom he is having no claim.

Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

Moreover, law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. 2004 (1) RCR (Civil) 147 by Hon''ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.

There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.