Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the Petitioner has beseeched to quash and set -aside the order dated 1st April, 2011, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sikar allowed the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure and permitted Suresh Kumar to be impleaded as a party -Defendant.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and carefully perused the impugned order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that the Petitioner -Plaintiff did not seek any relief against Suresh Kumar, who has been impleaded as a party -Defendant. His presence is no more required for the decision of the case nor he is related in any manner with the suit filed by him. Suresh Kumar is not at all a necessary party and the learned trial court has not assigned any reason as to how was he a necessary or proper party in the case, hence the impugned order deserves to be set -aside.
(3.) HAVING considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and scanned the impugned order, the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is found to be totally sketchy and capricious. Neither the facts of the case have been enumerated nor it has been recorded by the court as to how Suresh Kumar was a necessary party in this case. It is also not stated by the learned trial court as to what was the relief sought for by the Petitioner -Plaintiff against him. Unless it comes on record that the person, who is to be impleaded as a party in the suit was necessary or proper party for the just decision of the case and the suit or the issue involved could not be finally effectually and substantially decided, the person could not be allowed to be impleaded as a party. The impugned order appears to be arbitrary and found to have been passed without any cogent reason and thus, it deserves to be set -aside.;