w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Manidhari Air Products v/s Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40109MH2005SGC153645

Company & Directors' Information:- AIR INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U62200DL2007GOI161431

Company & Directors' Information:- AIR INDIA LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U62100DL1992GOI048581

Company & Directors' Information:- P P PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32305WB1991PTC051091

Company & Directors' Information:- K K PRODUCTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300DL1991PLC045521

Company & Directors' Information:- K B PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH2007PTC169627

Company & Directors' Information:- U B AIR PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1969PTC014216

Company & Directors' Information:- K G PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2007PTC031201

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22110WB1974PTC210201

Company & Directors' Information:- M L B PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC040990

Company & Directors' Information:- M M PRODUCTS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28994DL1992PLC050955

Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA AIR PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40200MH1997PTC107922

Company & Directors' Information:- M P K PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U26919AS1994PTC004183

Company & Directors' Information:- G K PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC043260

Company & Directors' Information:- N R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51109AS1998PTC005561

Company & Directors' Information:- C L PRODUCTS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2002PLC116975

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. A. PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51220PB2014PTC039023

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52320DL2011PTC213508

Company & Directors' Information:- R S PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC036603

Company & Directors' Information:- R R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24249HR1999PTC034291

Company & Directors' Information:- I G PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2012PTC183503

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31908DL2007PTC170841

Company & Directors' Information:- C F C PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28129DL1998PTC095531

Company & Directors' Information:- M S PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC055125

Company & Directors' Information:- B R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909DL1999PTC100727

Company & Directors' Information:- S P B PRODUCTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC082631

Company & Directors' Information:- G K D PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15431WB1998PTC086840

Company & Directors' Information:- M B R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17111WB1993PTC060806

Company & Directors' Information:- P D PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U23201DL2000PTC108462

Company & Directors' Information:- S K M PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U18101DL1998PTC093415

Company & Directors' Information:- H R PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1978PTC009183

Company & Directors' Information:- V S PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36900DL2008PTC185445

Company & Directors' Information:- H K PRODUCTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51900GJ2015PLC085457

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51221KA1989PTC010032

Company & Directors' Information:- G M PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1991PTC044687

Company & Directors' Information:- V T N PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51109WB1996PTC080094

Company & Directors' Information:- W S T Q PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31300DL1999PTC102655

Company & Directors' Information:- J M K PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24246OR2005PTC008446

Company & Directors' Information:- G S T PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31909TN2006PTC059575

Company & Directors' Information:- S M P PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25200DL2009PTC190965

Company & Directors' Information:- S N S PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15490DL2005PTC142749

Company & Directors' Information:- U B PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51224DL2002PTC116457

Company & Directors' Information:- A AND A PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21098MP2004PTC017128

Company & Directors' Information:- V J PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36900GJ2011PTC065252

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND A PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51311DL1991PTC042938

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND G PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL1982PTC014843

Company & Directors' Information:- B P PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24241WB1999PTC089499

Company & Directors' Information:- AIR PRODUCTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL1998PTC097058

Company & Directors' Information:- D AND P PRODUCTS LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U99999MH1951PTC008422

Company & Directors' Information:- S D H PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U55204KA2006PTC040734

Company & Directors' Information:- V M PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100DL2014PTC266679

Company & Directors' Information:- E C A PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27209TN1987PTC014022

Company & Directors' Information:- G S PRODUCTS LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25191UP1989PLC010483

Company & Directors' Information:- M AND M AIR PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA1998PTC024520

Company & Directors' Information:- A R K PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U24231UP1978PTC004606

Company & Directors' Information:- S. M. PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17299DL1966PTC004634

Company & Directors' Information:- R. M. R. PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2017PTC298120

Company & Directors' Information:- P & Q PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909DL2014PTC269162

Company & Directors' Information:- H T PRODUCTS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29266WB1981PTC033424

Company & Directors' Information:- PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U31901WB1961PLC024991

Company & Directors' Information:- M PRODUCTS & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1956PTC023215

    Writ Petition No. 1482 of 2017

    Decided On, 01 February 2019

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH PITALE

    For the Petitioner: M.P. Khajanchi, Counsel. For the Respondents: R1, S.V. Purohit, Counsel.



Judgment Text

1. Rule.

2. The question that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandrapur (trial Court), was justified in allowing an application moved by respondent no.1 (original plaintiff) for addition of the petitioner as defendant no.2 in a suit for recovery of amount towards electricity dues originally filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 (original defendant no.1).

3. The respondent no.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.29 of 2004, being a suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 6,90,494.18/- with 18% interest from 01-09-2004, against the respondent no.2. The said suit was filed on 30-10-2004. The respondent no.1 (Maharashtra State Electricity Board) had given electric connection to respondent no.2 in pursuance of agreement dated 18-03-2000, with effect from 31-03-2000. It was the case of respondent no.1 that respondent no.2 had not paid electricity dues from July, 2001 onwards, due to which respondent no.1 temporarily disconnected the electric supply to respondent no.1 on 03-09-2001. As the respondent no.2 allegedly failed to pay arrears of electricity dues, on 01-12-2001, respondent no.1 permanently disconnected electric supply to respondent no.2.

4. During the pendency of the suit on 26-08-2013, the respondent no.1 filed application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to add the petitioner as defendant no.2 in the aforesaid suit. It was stated in the said application that on a Bailiff report dated 06-02-2011 coming on recorded in the aforesaid suit, the respondent no.1 became aware that respondent no.2 was not found on its address for the last 10 years and that respondent no.2 Company was sold to the petitioner herein. On this basis, it was contended that the petitioner was a necessary and proper party in the suit and that the amount claimed by respondent no.1 was recoverable from the petitioner. This application was opposed by the petitioner, inter alia, contending that it had purchased respondent no.2Company in pursuance of proceedings undertaken by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, (for short, 'Act of 1951') and that the supply of electricity was disconnected to respondent no.2 much prior to 26-04-2005, when the petitioner purchased property of respondent no.2Company. It was contended that the electricity dues as against the respondent no.2 were not an encumbrance over the property of respondent no.2 and since the petitioner had applied to respondent no.1 for fresh connection of electricity, which was supplied, there was no basis for respondent no.1 to claim that the petitioner could be added as a defendant in the aforesaid suit.

5. By impugned order dated 18-01-2017, the trial Court allowed the application filed by respondent no.1 and directed that the petitioner be impleaded as defendant in the aforesaid suit. In the impugned order, the trial Court referred to and relied upon clauses of the agreement dated 26-04-2005, by virtue of which the petitioner had purchased the property, plant and machinery of respondent no.2 from the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation in an auction proceeding conducted by the said Corporation under Section 29 of the Act of 1951. It was observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, while allowing the application of respondent no.1, that observations made in the impugned order were not with respect to fixing the liability on the petitioner, but, the application was being allowed because the presence of the petitioner was found necessary to answer the controversy involved in the suit filed by respondent no.1.

6. Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court was wholly unsustainable because the liability of electricity dues claimed by respondent no.1 from respondent no.2 in the aforesaid suit, could not be foisted on the petitioner herein. It was contended that the amount sought to be recovered by respondent no.1 pertained to period from December, 2001 to August 2004 and that since the privity of contract for payment of said dues was only between respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, the petitioner could not be added as party, to be made liable to pay the said amount. It was contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous judgments has laid down that liability towards arrears payable by parties similarly placed like the respondent no.2 herein, could not be foisted on the parties like the petitioner herein who had purchased the property/plant and machinery of the party from which the amount was due under the provisions of the Electricity Act. It was submitted that Clauses similar to those in the agreement in the present case, dated 26-04-2005, by virtue of which the petitioner had purchased the said property of respondent no.2, were taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the parties similarly placed like the petitioner could not be held liable in such cases. It was further submitted that Circular dated 25-09-2003 of the respondent no.1 itself, specified that if the new applicant, like the petitioner in the present case, opted for fresh power supply, it would not be liable to pay outstanding arrears of the outgoing consumer. It was submitted that undisputedly, the petitioner had applied for and it was granted fresh electricity connection in respect of the property purchased by the petitioner from respondent no.2 and that therefore, there was no question of the petitioner being liable to pay the dues of respondent no.2. On this basis, it was submitted that when the position of law was absolutely clear that the petitioner could not be made liable for the dues, if any, payable to respondent no.1, there was no reason why application filed by respondent no.1 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, could have been allowed by the trial Court. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board and another, reported at (1995) 2 SCC 648, Special Officer, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (NESCO) and another V Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited and another, reported at (2012) 13 SCC 479, State of Karnataka and another vs Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd and others, reported at (2006) 1 SCC 615, Rana Girders Limited vs Union of India and others, reported at (2013) 10 SCC 746 and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited through its CMD and others vs Gopal Agarwal and others, reported at (2018) 12 SCC 644 as also judgments of this Court in the case of Aurangabad Industrial Associates vs State of Maharashtra and another, reported at 2001(3) Mh.L.J. 893, Super & Stainless HiAlloys Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported at 2003(1) Mh.L.J. 1001 and Akanksha International vs Maharashtra state Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd, reported at 2008(1) Mh.L.J. 753.

7. On the other hand Mr. S.V. Purohit, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 defended the impugned order passed by the trial Court by heavily relying upon the aforesaid agreement dated 26042005, whereby the petitioner had purchased the property, plant and machinery of respondent no.2 in proceedings under Section 29 of the Act of 1951, from the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation. The learned Counsel placed much reliance on Clause 2 of the said agreement, wherein it has been specified that the assets of respondent no.2 were sold to the petitioner on 'as is, where is and what is basis'. It was also emphasized that under the said Clause the petitioner had agreed to pay charges and dues concerning the said assets of respondent no.2, for which the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation would not be responsible. It was submitted that the aforesaid Clause and the entire aforesaid agreement was enough to demonstrate that the presence of the petitioner was necessary before the trial Court for effectively and completely adjudicating and settling all questions involved in the suit, as required under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC. It was submitted that addition and impleading of the petitioner as defendant in the suit did not amount to fixing of liability for the aforesaid dues on the petitioner and this aspect was expressly clarified by the trial Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned order. On this basis, it was submitted that the Writ Petition deserved to be dismissed.

8. Heard Counsel for the parties. The question as to whether the petitioner could have been added as a party defendant in the suit filed by respondent no. 1 before the trial Court has to be decided on the touchstone of Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC. The said provision reads as follows:

'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, 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.'

9. A perusal of the above quoted provision shows that the addition of the petitioner as party defendant in the suit filed by respondent no.1 would be justified, if it is found that the presence of the petitioner is necessary in order to enable the trial Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In the present case, there is no doubt about the fact that the arrears of amount towards electricity dues pertains to the supply of electricity to respondent no. 2. It is due to the default on the part of respondent no. 2 in payment of electricity dues pertaining to a specific period that respondent no. 1 filed the suit for recovery of amount against respondent no. 2. It is not even the case of respondent no. 1 that the period for which it was seeking to recover dues, was a period when supply of electricity was given to the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was supplied electricity as a fresh electricity connection after it had purchased the property, plant and machinery of respondent no. 2 in an auction conducted by the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation under Section 29 of the Act of 1951.

10. In facts similar to the facts in the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the question as to whether fresh electricity connection to a purchaser of property, plant and machinery like the petitioner in the present case, could be denied connection on the ground that the earlier consumer of electricity in the same premises had failed to clear electricity dues. In the case of Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board and another (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with an identical situation where auction purchaser under Section 29 of the Act of 1951, had purchased premises and they were denied fresh electricity connection by the State Electricity Board on the ground that the electricity dues of the old consumer in the same premises had not been cleared. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :

'56. From the above it is clear, the High Court has chosen to construe Section 24 of the Electricity Act correctly. There is no charge over the property. Where that premises comes to be owned or occupied by the auction purchaser, when such purchaser seeks supply of electric energy he cannot be called upon to clear past arrears as a condition precedent to supply. What matters is the contract entered into by the erstwhile consumer with the Board. The Board cannot seek the enforcement of contractual liability against the third party. Of course, the bona fides of the sale may not be relevant.'

11. This position of law is followed in subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Special Officer, Commerce, North Eastern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa (NESCO) and another V Raghunath Paper Mills Private Limited and another and Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited through its CMD and others vs Gopal Agarwal and others (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with cases similar to the present case wherein the purchaser of the property of a defaulting establishment had purchased the same on 'as is, where is and whatever there is' basis. Even in such cases, by following the earlier judgment in the case of Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board and another (supra), it was held that the purchaser of such a property while applying for fresh connection could not be deprived of the same on the condition that it was required to clear electricity dues of the earlier owner of the premises, whose property had been purchased by the said purchaser under Section 29 of the Act of 1951, on 'as is, where is and whatever there is' basis. Although the petitioner has relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka and another vs Shreyas Papers (P) Ltd and others (supra) and Rana Girders Limited vs Union of India and others, (supra) contending that the liabilities of the erstwhile owner could be foisted on a purchaser under Section 29 of the Act of 1951, only if the purchased unit was an ongoing concern, this Court does not deem it necessary to go into that question because the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Isha Marbles vs Bihar State Electricity Board and another (supra) and followed subsequently, specifically pertained to the question of supply of electricity to a purchaser like the petitioner and the liability, if any, of such purchaser to clear the dues of the erstwhile owner of the property.

12. The judgments of this Court in the cases of Ahmedabad electricity Co.Ltd vs Gujarat Inns Pvt. Ltd. and others, reported at (2004) 3 SCC 587 and Super & Stainless HiAlloys Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (supra), followed the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the position of law laid down in these judgments in detail. Suffice it to say that in the case of Super & Stainless HiAlloys Ltd vs State of Maharashtra and others (supra) this Court has further laid down that since there is no nexus or relationship or privity of contract between an auction purchaser and the electricity Board, the unpaid bills of the previous consumer cannot be recovered from the auction purchaser.

13. In the case of Akanksha International vs Maharashtra state Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd (supra), which has been very fairly placed before this Court by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, it has been laid down on the basis of Regulations of 2005, framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission that electricity dues remaining unpaid by a deceased consumer or erstwhile owner/occupier of any premises shall be charged from the new owner/occupier on the premises. But it has been correctly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said regulations framed in the year 2005, would not apply to the facts of the present case because respondent no. 1 had filed the suit for recovery against respondent no. 2 for the period prior to the aforesaid regulations framed in the year 2005.

14. The position of law as it emerges from the said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, is that when an auction purchaser like the petitioner in the present case purchases a property, plant and machinery under Section 29 of the Act of 1951, it cannot be foisted with the liability of electricity dues of the erstwhile owner. Although the said position has been laid down primarily in the context of cases where fresh connection of electricity was denied to the auction purchaser and a condition was insisted upon by the electricity Board that dues of previous owner be cleared, in the present case admittedly even fresh connection was given to the petitioner without any such condition by respondent no. 1 and after about nine years of filing the suit for recovery against respondent no.2, the petitioner was sought to be added as a defendant in the suit, claiming that the amount due from respondent no. 2 could be recovered from the petitioner. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for respondent no. 1, as also the trial Court on Clause (2) of the agreement dated 26-04-2005, emphasizing on the words 'as is, where is and what is' basis, would also be of no assistance to respondent no.1, because even in the face of such clause in the agreement executed by auction purchasers in circumstances similar to the present case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphatically laid down that the electricity dues of the erstwhile owner could not be foisted upon auction purchaser like the petitioner in the present case. As a result, the position of law makes it absolutely clear that the trial Court in the present case was not justified in holding that the application filed by respondent no.1 to add the petitioner as a party defendant in the suit deserved to be allowed, mainly on the ground that the aforesaid clause in the agreement dated 26042005, used the words 'as is, where is and what is' basis.

15. The contention raised on behalf of respondent no.1 that the clarification given by the trial Court in paragraph 17 of its judgment and order sufficiently protected the petitioner, is also not sustainable because it has been held in paragraph 16 of the impugned order that the presence of the petitioner as a defendant would facilitate the Court to answer the controversy with respect to entitlement of respondent no.1. In fact, the trial Court has categorically held that the petitioner was not only a necessary but also a proper party for the purpose of adjudication of the suit filed by respondent no.1. The said findings rendered by the trial Court, when tested on the touchstone of order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC, do not pass muster. The said provision clearly lays down that a party can be added to a proceeding before the Court at any stage, if the Court finds that the presence of such party is necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate or settle all the questions involved in the suit. The only question that needs to be adjudicated and settled in the suit filed by respondent no.1 is, as to whether it is entitled to recover specific amount with interest from respondent no.2 towards electricity dues for a specific period for supply of electricity provided by respondent

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

no.1 to respondent no.2. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, that such dues could never be recovered from an auction purchaser like the petitioner who had purchased the property, plant and machinery of respondent no.2 under Section 29 of the Act of 1951 and further that there was no privity of contract between respondent no.1 and the petitioner as regards the said dues, it was clear that the presence of the petitioner was not necessary to effectively and completely adjudicate or settle the question involved in the suit filed by respondent no.1. In fact, since the respondent no.1 is not at all entitled to claim the dues from the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is either a necessary or a proper party in the suit filed by respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2. 16. In this context, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is correct that when it is found that as per the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, the petitioner can never be held liable for payment of dues from respondent no.2, as well as the fact that the petitioner cannot be said to be either a necessary or a proper party to the suit, there is no propriety in adding the petitioner as a defendant in the suit and to face litigation before the trial Court. Since the respondent no.1 had failed to make out a case for adding the petitioner as a party defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the CPC, the trial Court clearly erred in allowing the application filed by respondent no.1 and in passing the impugned order directing the petitioner to be impleaded as a defendant in this suit. 17. In the light of the above, it is found that the impugned order dated 18-01-2017, passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside and the application filed by respondent no.1 under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC is dismissed. 18. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
O R