- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 01.03.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, vide which the application moved by the petitioner-defendant to implead M/s Track-On Vogue Pvt. Ltd (for short 'TOPL') as defendant no.3 has been dismissed.
(2.) Plaintiff-Respondent no.1 filed the suit for possession and for recovery of rents/damages against the petitioner-defendant. That proposed defendant entered into Franchise Agreement with the petitioner on 30.09.2009. Plaintiff-respondent was well aware of the said Franchise Agreement and has consented thereto. He was also aware of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Agreement. The proposed defendant was appointed as franchise of the goods belonging to Arvind Brands and was required to accept consignments of the stocks bearing brand name 'ARROW' despatched by the petitioner and to display the same in the suit property, promote and market the same. The proposed defendant was to bear all the maintenance charges, electricity charges and service charges. That in terms of clause 13 of the Franchise Agreement, the proposed defendant was to indemnify the petitioner against any loss, damage or liability arising as a result of non-observance of any statutory requirement, third party liability of legal dues of any nature. So, the claim of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 with respect to recovery of rent/damages is required to be indemnified by the proposed defendant.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned Sr. Advocate with Abhishek Sanghi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and have meticulously gone through the paper book.;