SABINA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P -1) whereby application moved by respondent No. 1 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was allowed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the written statement filed by the petitioner, objection had been taken qua non -joinder of necessary parties. However, the application in question had been filed after five years of the filing of the written statement. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Impugned order dated 11.5.2012 (Annexure P -1) reads as under: - ''Heard on the application u/o 1 r 10 CPC r/w o 6 r 17 for impleading M/s Harish Chander (India) Gables having office at S.C.O. No. 2 -A Sector 7 -C Chandigarh along with the existing plaintiff RP Garg being necessary and proper party and for amendment of the plaint. Said application has been opposed for being not maintainable on different grounds. Perusal of the file shows that present suit has been filed by Sh. RP Garg for rendition of account pleading that he is the authorized signatory of M/s Harish Chander (India) Gables having office at S.C.O. No. 2 -A, Sector 7 -C, Chandigarh. Said company had entered into a sub contract with M/s Nagaarjun Construction Co. Ltd., for carrying out the contract for construction of Dr. Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health, Amritsar and the said company purchased the different material from the defendant. However, defendant did not settled the accounts with the company. Which led to the filing of the present suit for rendition of account. Thus, in fact plaintiff has pleaded that he has entered into transaction with the defendant through his company named M/s Harish Chander (India) Gables having office at S.C.O. No. 2 -A, Sector 7 -C, Chandigarh. Now in the present suit for rendition of account said company cannot be said to be not necessary for the adjudication of the present dispute. As in fact plaintiff R.P. Garg through his above said company has agreed to procure the supply from the defendant and now the present suit for rendition of account cannot be decided without the presence of the said company as one of the plaintiff. Thus, company is necessary party as a plaintiff for the determination of present case. As a consequence thereof the amendment is being sought in the body of the plaint to add plaintiffs instead of work ''Plaintiff '' in all the paras of the suit. Reader will enter the applicant as plaintiff No. 2 in the head note of the plaint and will make the necessary correction in the body of the plaint. Accordingly present application u/o 1 r 10 CPC read with order 6 r 17 stands allowed. Entire plaintiff evidence be produced on 23.5.2012. '' In the present case, respondent No. 1 has filed suit for rendition of accounts as authorized signatory of respondent No. 2. Admittedly, in the written statement filed by the petitioner, an objection was taken that the suit was bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. Although, the application for permission to implead the company as a plaintiff, was filed after delay but the fact remains that respondent No. 1 at the time of filing of the suit had claimed that he was the authorized signatory of company -respondent No. 2. In these circumstances, the company can be said to be necessary party for determination of the lis between the parties. The Trial Court had, thus, rightly allowed the application filed by respondent No. 1 for impleading respondent No. 2 as a party/plaintiff. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take up all the pleas available to it including the plea of limitation before the Trial Court at the appropriate stage. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.;