--1-- C.M.P. No. 594 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.M.P. No. 594 of 2024 ---- 1. Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, aged about 57 years, s/o Babulal Agarwal, r/o Holding No.359, Malancha Road, near HDFC Bank, Ward No.16, Kharagpur, PO – Lal Bunglow, PS – West Midnapore, District – West Midnapore, State – West Bengal 2. Suresh Kumar Agarwal, aged about 69 years, S/o Ramavtar Agarwal, r/o near HDFC Bank, Ward No.16, Kharagpur, PO – Lal Bunglow, PS – West Midnapore, District – West Midnapore, State – West Bengal .... Petitioners -- Versus -- Kanhaiyalal Nagelia, s/o Late Laxmi Narayan Nagelia, proprietor of Shubh Laxmi Enterprises, shop No.c/22, agriculture Market Yard, Parsudih, PO – Tatanagar, PS – Parsudih, Jamshedpur, presently residing at Flat No.401, 4th Floor, M.P. Nagina Complex, Adityapur, PO and PS – Kandra, Main Road, Adityapur – 1, District – Seraikella – Kharsawan .... Opposite Party ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioners :- Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, Advocate For the O.P :- ---- 06/27.01.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jamshedpur whereby he has been pleased to reject the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Section 13 and 151 of the CPC filed in Original Money Suit No.54 of 2017 which was renumbered as Original Suit No.310 of 2019. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this petition under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC read with Section 13 and --2-- C.M.P. No. 594 of 2024 151 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 saying that they have no concern and the relief is also not sought against them and in view of that they may kindly be deleted from the array of the respondents in the said original money suit. He submits that the learned Court has erroneously rejected the said petition without considering the role of the defendant Nos.3 and 4 in the money suit. 4. In the impugned order, the learned Court has found that in paragraph No.2 of the plaint, it is stated that the defendant No.3 is the brother and the defendant No.4 is the paternal uncle of defendant No.2 and it is also stated that the defendant Nos.3 and 4 are also associates of defendant No.2 in the said business of sugar trading and they all run his family business jointly and if such a situation is there and if jointness is there, the argument of learned counsel of the petitioners are misconceived one. 5. The learned Court has rightly passed the said order, as such this petition is dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Sangam/