MAHENDRA DAYAL,J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order.
(2.) The revisionist has filed this revision against the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.23, Lucknow in Regular Suit No.949 of 2008, whereby the application moved on behalf of the revisionist for deletion of its name from the array of the party, has been refused.
(3.) The facts in brief are that the opposite party no.1 filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming recovery of pension and medical reimbursement from the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist who was arrayed as defendant no.2 in the suit. It was alleged by the opposite party no.1 that he was initially appointed by the opposite party no.3 M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Limited which was taken over by the revisionist and the opposite party no.2. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that perusal of the offer of appointment given by the opposite party no.2 clearly reveals that the revisionist has made no offer of appointment to the opposite party no.1. Thus, there is no relationship between the revisionist and the opposite party no.1. In the absence of any relationship between them, the opposite party no.1 could not have claimed any relief against the revisionist. The revisionist and the opposite party no.2 both are separate companies and since there was no involvement of the revisionist in the re-employment of the opposite party no.1, no relief can be claimed from the revisionist. He, therefore, made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for deletion of its name on the ground that it has been improperly joined as defendant.;