AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J
The captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of I.A-1/2021, which was filed to implead the auction purchaser i.e., proposed defendants No.12, 15, 18 and 20.
The learned judge has proceeded to reject the application on the premise that the petitioner – plaintiff has not been able to serve the notice on impleading application filed in I.A-1/2021. On this premise, the learned judge has virtually proceeded to reject the application itself. This order prima-facie appears to be palpably erroneous.
The learned judge could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner – plaintiff on the premise that the notice issued on the impleading application for the proposed defendants is not served. The order under challenge does not indicate laxness or negligence on the part of petitioner – plaintiff to pay process, therefore, the order is not sustainable. The contesting respondents i.e., proposed defendants are served with the notice before this Court. There is no contest in the present Writ Petition.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.04.2022 rejecting the application filed in I.A-1/2021 is set aside. The petitioner – plaintiff is at liberty to take steps to the proposed defendants.
The learned judge is directed to decide the application filed in I.A-1/2021 after the process is complete on I.A-1/2021. It is made clear that the petitioner – plaintiff cannot take undue advantage of pendency of I.A-1/2021 and shall take effective steps at the earliest and thereafter address his arguments on I.A-1/2021. If the proposed defendants are served with notice in pending suit, they are at liberty to file objections to impleading application. Learned judge shall pass appropriate orders on I.A-1/2021.
Though hand summons is not served on impleading proposed defendant i.e., respondent No.18, if the order under challenge is set aside, no prejudice would be caused to proposed defendant, who is not served before this Court. It would be always open for the said proposed defendant to file his objections to the application filed in I.A-1/2021. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to decide the case in the absence of proposed defendant No.18.