Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010040272025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/62/2025 PRINCE RAJ DIRECTOR DG RAJ COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD, 8226 FIRST FLOOR, STREET NO. 5, MULTANI DHANDA, PAHARGANJ, NEW DELHI 110055 VERSUS VAIBHAB JAIN S/O BHAGCHAND JAIN, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 5,UDPL BUILDING, N.R BORA, COMPLEX, S.RBORA ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI ASSAM 781007 2:DG RAJ HIGHWAY SERVICES BELWA EAST CHAMPARAN BIHAR 845423 3:DADAN LAL SRIVASTAVA PROPRIETOR DG RAJ HIGHWAY SERVICES BUNGLOW NO. 47 VIKRAM VIHAR 493/B/ GT ROAD (SOUTH) HOWRAH WEST BENGAL. 71110 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Sarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears. Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 28.02.2025 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. This is an application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in Money Suit No.152/2022 whereby the petitioner who is the defendant No.3 in the suit sought for striking off his name which was rejected. 3. This Court duly takes note of paragraph Nos. 13 and 14 of the plaint. There are specific averments made as regards the involvement of the defendant No.3/petitioner in respect to the transactions which is a subject matter of the dispute in the learned Trial Court. Whether the statements made in the plaint are correct or incorrect, the same can only be adjudicated at the time of the trial. 4. This Court has duly taken note of the order dated 26.07.2024 and further on a perusal of the observations made in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said order, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court had not committed any error in exercising the jurisdiction. 5. Considering the above, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant