Mahesh Grover, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 10.9.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon vide which an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC preferred by the plaintiff/respondent has been allowed.
(2.) THE issue raised by the respondent before the Court of learned Addl. District Judge was under the Trade Mark Act and a multifarious prayer had been made in the suit wherein initially the plaintiff/respondent impleaded only M/s. Gitanjali Gems Ltd. as the defendant through its Managing Director. The concern M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited appeared and filed its written statement and one of the pleas raised was that M/s. Gitanjali Gems Limited was a subsidiary of M/s. Gitanjali Lifestyle Limited. This prompted the petitioner to make an application seeking impleadment of the present petitioner i.e. M/s. Gitanjali Lifestyle Limited as a necessary party which has been allowed and is now the cause of grievance to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with reference to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC that the court could have considered the application under the said provisions if the error in omitting a party from the array of defendants was bona fide which apparently is lacking as the petitioner is conscious of the aforesaid fact of the defendant Gitanjali Gems Limited being a subsidiary of Gitanjali Lifestyle Limited and thus there was no occasion for the respondent to have omitted the name of the petitioner from the array of defendants.
(3.) IT is thus sought to be contended that the impugned order is erroneous and the plaintiff/respondent has in fact tried to take advantage of its own wrong.;