Jagdeep Singh vs Kanwaljeet Singh & Ors.

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

The petitioner happens to be the defendant no.1 before the learned Trial Court and is aggrieved by order dated 21.03.2024 whereby his application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his deletion from the array of the parties had been dismissed despite the fact that he ceased to be the director in the defendant no.2/company.

I have taken note of the averments made in the plaint. In para 5 of the plaint, it has been very clearly mentioned that though, initially, defendant no.1 was inducted as tenant but thereafter at request of defendant No., defendant no.2 company was also inducted, as joint tenant, in the same tenancy.

According to the petitioner herein, such assertion is totally wrong and he would also prove the same during the course of the trial.

The truthfulness or falsity of any assertion in the pleadings would stand established only when the case is put to trial.

After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition and that he would prove at the stage of trial that the tenancy in question was never a joint tenancy. Needless to say, defendant no.1 is always at liberty to establish the same either by way of cross-examination of the plaintiff or by leading independent evidence.

In view of the aforesaid, since the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition anymore, the same is accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

Needless to say the observation appearing in the impugned order has been made at the initial stage of the case and would be subject to the outcome of the trial.