- (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the order dated 30.9.2011, whereby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner canvassed that Bhura, Manna, Hanuman, Jeevan, Sudha and others are the khatedar tenants of land in question, who executed the Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner Rameshwar Prasad. They are the principal owners of the property and they are equally bound by sale of the property executed by the petitioner being the power of attorney holder in favour of the respondent Nana Devi. LEARNED counsel further canvassed that under Section 226 of the Indian Contract Act, even if the agent enters into a contract, then the principal is liable for the acts of agent in person. The principal is a necessary party in the suit, hence the learned trial court ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner and permitted him to implead the khatedar tenants of the land as party-defendants. Thus, the impugned order of the learned trial court is arbitrary, which deserves to be set-aside. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper, which did not warrant any intervention. At the very out-set, it is relevant to reproduce Section 226 of the Contract Act, which reads thus: Contract entered into through the agent and obligations arising from acts done by an agent may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in nature. The provisions of Section 226 unequivocally suggests that the enforcement and consequences of the agent's contracts have got the same force and same legal consequences as if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. This provision does not suggest that the principal is liable for the acts of the agent but conversely the provisions contemplate that the contracts entered into through the agent and the obligations arising from acts done by agent has the same force in the same manner as if they are entered into by the principal in person. Hence, the provisions of Section 226 of the Contract Act do not give any strength to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two or three more judgments, but they are also of no avail and do not render any assistance to the Court. In the instant case, it is the petitioner, who is the general power of attorney holder and it is he, who executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent-defendant. The power of attorney has not been questioned by the khatedar tenants nor it has been belied by them. It is not the case that the khatedar tenants expressed that they never executed any power of attorney in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not hold good on the facts of the instant case. It is not understandable as to what made the petitioner to think impleading the khatedar tenants of the land in question as party-defendants in the suit. It is pertinent to note that no relief has been sought by the plaintiff against the khatedar tenants of the land in question. The relief has been sought against the petitioner only and it is the choice of the plaintiff as to whom he impleads as a party and against whom he seeks relief. It is the choice of the plaintiff and plaintiff cannot be compelled to implead any person as a party. If the plaintiff does not implead any person as a party to the suit or wrongly impleads any person as a party,his suit will fail and he will suffer the consequences.
(3.) THE impugned order passed by the learned trial court seems to be just and apt. It is not found to have suffered from any infirmity and thus, the learned trial court is found to have rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and that also stands dismissed. ;