Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) 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 Code of Civil Procedure (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.
(2.) 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.
(3.) 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:;