AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 214 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
By the impugned order dated 17/05/2019, the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 7 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the
CPC for impleadment of parties (proposed defendants No. 8 to 38) has been rejected by learned 2 nd Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur against which this
writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 7 would submit that proposed defendants No. 8 to 38 are necessary parties and they ought to have
been impleaded as defendants in the civil suit in which he has filed counter claim.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the records thoughtfully.
Learned trial Court has clearly recorded a finding that proposed defendants No. 8 to 38 are not necessary parties and has assigned sufficient and
valid reasons for their non-impleadment in the civil suit, and has further held that co-defendant cannot file counter claim against another co-defendant.
The above-stated finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary
to record.
The writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No cost(s).