CGHC010415362024 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1104 of 2024 Jai Balaji Jyoti Steel Limited Through Sandeep Nair, Aged About 54 Years, At Present Village- Tainser, Near Birkera, Sundargarh, Odisha ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hari Krishan Agrawal Proprietor, Mahamaya Steel Agency, Patwa Complex, M.G. Road, Raipur. 2 - M/s Galwalia Ispat Udyog Private Limited A-80, Vivek Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi- 110095 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Shri Ankit Pandey, Advocate For Respondent-1 : Shri Siddhartha Shukla, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 30.09.2026 1. Heard. 2. Present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur CG in Case No.17B of 2024, whereby the application filed by the respondent-1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was allowed and the plaintiff was directed to delete the name of defendant-1 from the cause-title of the suit. Wp227 1104 of 2024 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, where he was prosecuting a suit for recovery of Rs.57,18,409/- against the defendants/respondents before the learned Commercial Court. In the suit, he made specific pleading about involvement of defendant-1 in the transaction and issuance of purchase orders in paragraph-3 of the plaint that defendant-1 had issued purchase orders No.661 and 721 and in pursuance thereof, transactions were made between the plaintiff and defendant-2. Learned Commercial Court without considering the true aspect of the transactions, allowed the application filed by defendant-1 holding that there is no sufficient pleadings and involvement of defendant-1 in the subject transaction. He would further submit that in the written statement filed by defendant-1, he has not denied his involvement in the subject transaction. Involvement of defendant-1, in view of the pleadings made by the plaintiff, requires evidence and the documents which have been considered by the learned Commercial Court also require evidence and it is the plaintiff, who is the Dominus litus of the suit, has impleaded defendant-1 by making sufficient pleading against him. Yet, at initial stage of the suit, learned Commercial Court allowed the application of defendant-1 and directed the plaintiff to delete his name. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the application filed by defendant-1 under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC may also be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant-1 would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would Wp227 1104 of 2024 3 submit that defendant-1 has no nexus with the subject transaction between the plaintiff and defendant-2. Though the plaintiff has made pleading in the plaint but learned trial Court has considered that it is not sufficient to proceed against defendant-1 in the suit, as the same could not sufficiently allege the involvement of defendant-1 in the subject transaction. Defendant-1 has specifically denied his involvement in the subject transaction between the plaintiff and defendant-2 and there is no payment of any consideration to, or through defendant-1. it is purely a commercial transaction between the plaintiff and defendant-2, in which there is no involvement of defendant-1. Yet he has been prosecuted in the suit filed by the plaintiff. The impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court is well reasoned order, based on proper appreciation of material available on record and the law applicable to it. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order by the learned Commercial Court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. From perusal of copy of the plaint, filed by the petitioner before the learned Commercial Court, Annexure P2, it transpires that petitioner made relevant pleadings against defendant-1 that defendant-1 issued two purchase orders i.e. purchase order No. 661 and 721 on behalf of defendant-2 and in pursuance thereof, material was supplied. It is Wp227 1104 of 2024 4 necessary to note here the relevant part of the pleading of the plaint, which reads as under: “3. That, on 29.05.2019, defendant no. 1 for and on behalf of defendant no. 2 and as defendant no.2 intended to purchase Sponge (Lumps) Fem82, Sulphur +Phos =80 for 1000 Mt @ 20100/- Ex plant issued a purchase order bearing no. 661 for purchase of Sponge (Lumps) Fem82, Sulphur +Phos 80 for 1000 Mt @ 20100/- ex-plant and again on 04.06.2019 another purchase order bearing no 721 was issued for purchase of 2400 MT @ 20,200/- ex-plant of High Grade Sponge (Bora Packing) of (Fem-82) for total sum of Rs. 8,09,24,400/- (Rs.2,37,18,000/- 5,72,06,400/-) as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the said purchase orders as ex plant works. It is submitted that for both the Purchase Orders defendant no.1 paid an advance amount of Rs. 2,37,18,000/-(1.50,00,000/- + Rs. 87,18,000/-).” 7. In the written statement of Defendant-1 dated 22.05.2026 which was filed before the learned Commercial court, and a copy of which filed by the petitioner on 10.07.2026 in the petition along with the covering memo, defendant-1, though denied issuance of purchase orders and his involvement in the said transaction, but in paragraph-9 and 10 of his written statement, he pleaded that purchase orders No.661 and 721 are actually, ‘Souda Patrak’, which has been issued by the defendant-1 for confirmation of the quantity and the price fixed between the plaintiff and defendant-2. It is also relevant here to note paragraph-8 and 9 of the written statement submitted by defendant-1 before the learned Commercial Court, which reads as under: Wp227 1104 of 2024 5 “8.That the contents of para 3 of the plaint are false and misleading hence denied. It is specifically denied that on 29/05/2019 defendant no 1 for and on behalf of defendant no 2 and as defendant no 2 intended to purchase sponge (lamps) for-82, sulphur Phos =80 for 1,000 MT @2100/- explant issued a purchase order bearing no.661. it is also specifically denied that on 04/06/2019 another purchase order bearing 721 was issued for purchase of 2400 MT @20,200/- ex plant of high- grade sponge (Bora packing) for both purchase order total sum of Rs 8,09,24,400/-. It is also specifically denied defendant no 1 has paid an advance amount of Rs 2,37,18,000/- to the plaintiff for both the purchase order. 9. That the true facts are that what plaintiff is calling order no 661 and 72.1 is actually Sauda patrak which has been issued by the defendant no 1 for the confirmation of quantity and the price fixed between plaintiff and defendant no 2 but plaintiff with ill motive calling those as purchase order. The actual purchase order has been issued by defendant no 2 with order bearing no 307 dated 29/5/2019 for the supply of 1000 MT sponge iron @20,000/- and second purchase order bearing no 346 on 4/06/2019 for supply of 2400 MT @20,200/-. The said purchase orders contained all the specifications and other terms and conditions regarding supply of sponge iron including the payment terms. That the defendant no 1 has never paid any amount whatsoever with respect to any transaction to the plaintiff.” 8. Learned Commercial Court while invoking its power for deciding the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, filed by defendant-1, directed the plaintiff to struck off the name of defendant-1 from the array Wp227 1104 of 2024 6 of plaint. Therefore, the provision of Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC is also necessary to be taken note here, which reads as under: Order I rule 10─. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff─. (1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake, and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just. (2) Court may strike out or add parties. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. (3) No person shall be added as a plaintiff suing without a next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any disability without his consent. (4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended. Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. Wp227 1104 of 2024 7 (5) Subject to the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (15 of 1877), Section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to have begun only on the service of the summons. 9. From plain reading of the provision of Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, it provides that learned trial Court may, at any stage of the proceeding, order that the name of any party, improperly joined as plaintiff, or defendant, be stuck off, whose presence before the Court may not be necessary, or, in order to enable the Court effectually, and completely, to adjudicate upon the settled all the questions involved in the suit be added. 10. In the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited V. Regency convention centre and Hotels Private Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “13. The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief. Consequently, a person who is not a party has no right to be impleaded against the wishes of the plaintiff. But this general rule is subject to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("the Code", for short), which provides for impleadment of proper or necessary parties. The said sub-rule is extracted below: "10. (2) Court may strike out or add parties.-The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, Wp227 1104 of 2024 8 order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added. 15. A "necessary party" is a person who ought to have been joined as a party and in whose absence no effective decree could be passed at all by the court. If a "necessary party" is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed. A "proper party" is a party who, though not a necessary party, is a person whose presence would enable the court to completely, effectively and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit, though he need not be a person in favour of or against whom the decree is to be made. If a person is not found to be a proper or necessary party, the court has no jurisdiction to implead him, against the wishes of the plaintiff. The fact that a person is likely to secure a right/interest in a suit property, after the suit is decided against the plaintiff, will not make such person a necessary party or a proper party to the suit for specific performance. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following observations of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. 1 to contend that a person need not have any subsisting right or interest in the suit property for being impleaded as a defendant, and that even a person who is likely to acquire an interest therein in future, in appropriate cases, is entitled to be impleaded as a party: (SCC pp. 85 & 87, paras 9 & 14) "9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal 2. He has submitted that in this case it has been held that in a suit for specific performance Wp227 1104 of 2024 9 of a contract for sale of property a stranger or a third party to the contract cannot be added as defendant in the suit. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision is clearly distinguishable. In our opinion, the aforesaid decision can only be understood to mean that a third party cannot be impleaded in a suit for specific performance if he has no semblance of title in the property in dispute. Obviously, a busybody or interloper with no semblance of title cannot be impleaded in such a suit. That would unnecessarily protract or obstruct the proceedings in the suit. However, the aforesaid decision will have no application where a third party shows some semblance of title or interest in the property in dispute. 14. ... it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that whenever a suit for specific performance is filed by A against B, a third party C can never be impleaded in that suit. ... if C can show a fair semblance of title or interest he can certainly file an application for impleadment." ** ** ** 25. In other words, the court has the discretion to either to allow or reject an application of a person claiming to be a proper party, depending upon the facts and circumstances and no person has a right to insist that he should be impleaded as a party, merely because he is a proper party.” 11. On a comparative reading of the plaint, as well as the written statement filed by defendant-1 and also in view of the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, it is clear that there is sufficient pleading made by the plaintiff in the plaint against defendant-1 for prosecuting him in the suit for recovery of amount. Though the plaintiff may, or may not succeed in the plaint against defendant-1, or any of the defendants, but Wp227 1104 of 2024 10 at stage, it cannot be said that defendant-1 is being prosecuted in the suit without there being any basis, as there is sufficient pleading available in the plaint that with involvement of defendant-1, the subject transaction was made by the plaintiff with defendant-2 and he is a necessary/proper party to the suit, therefore, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mumbai International Airport (supra) and also in the pleadings available in the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Commercial court dated 20.11.2024 requires interference. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District-Raipur CG in Case No.17B of 2024 is set aside and the application filed by respondent-1/defendant-1 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of the CPC is hereby dismissed. 13. Learned Commercial Court is directed to proceed with the suit as per the parties made by the plaintiff in the suit in accordance with law, and decide the same on its own merits. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 15. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.10.05 14:48:00 +0530