1. This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Pali dated September 16, 1992 by which he has rejected the application of the Petitioner moved under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code the facts of the case giving rise to This revision petition may be summarised thus.2. In April 1990, the plaintiff non-Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against the defendant/non-Petitioner No. 2 for injunction with the prayer that the defendant be restrained from terminating/cancelling the retail outlet dealership granted to him in the year 1976 for the village Ramasia (Pali). By its letter No.1889 dated March 26, 1990, the defendant intimated the plaintiff that the said dealership was granted in the joint names of the plaintiff and Sidharth Charan, without prior permission the plaintiff has effected change in the Constitution of his firm against Clauses 6(a) and 6(b) and 7(a) and 7(b) of letter dated May 11, 1976 by which the retail outlet dealership was granted. On this ground the defendant intends to terminate/cancel the dealership and this action has been taken at the instance of Sidharth Charan (Petitioner). The retail outlet dealership was not in fact granted in the joint names of the plaintiff and Sidharth Charan, it was granted in his name only and licence was also obtained by him from the District Magistrate and Collector, Pali in his name and since the year 1976 he is operating the same in the name and style of Pali Filling station, G.T. Road, Ramasia, Pali which is a proprietorship firm and is exclusively owned by him.3. The Petitioner moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code for being impleaded as a party in the suit with the averment that the said dealership was obtained in the joint names of the plaintiff and the Petitioner, he is a necessary party in the suit and he has not been impleaded by the plaintiff in the suit to cover up his fraud. The plaintiff filed its reply seriously opposing it. He has averred in it that the dealership was obtained by him in his exclusive name, the Petitioner is in the Indian Administrative Service since the year 1983, he is at present posted in West Bengal and at his instance the said action has been taken by the defendant. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties the learned trial Court dismissed the application by its order under challenge.4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the said dealership was granted by the defendant in the joint names of the plaintiff and the Petitioner, the Petitioner is a necessary party, the learned trial Court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction while rejecting the application moved under Order 1, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code He relied upon Jabar Chand v. M/s. Mangal Chand Champa Lal, 1977 WLN (UC) 58. He further contended that the 328 Banking Cases 1994 nature of suit is not changed and the controversy remains the same. He relied upon Jabar Chand v. M/s. Mangal Chand Champa Lal, 1977 WLN (UC) 58. He further contended that the nature of suit is not changed and the controversy remains the same. He relied upon Kanakarathanammal v. V.S. Loganatha, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 271, Murlidhar Shiv Dayal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Alwar, AIR 1978 Rajasthan 48, and Gauri Shenker v. Jabbar Singh, 1984 RLW 51.5. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff- non-Petitioner that admittedly the said dealership is being operated since the year 1976 by the plaintiff non-Petitioner exclusively, permission to instal Petrol Pump was obtained by him from the District Magistrate and Collector, Pali, agreement was executed in favour of the defendant/non-Petitioner No. 2 by the plaintiff and the Petitioner did nothing during las. 17 years in connection with the operation of.the said dealership. He relied upon M/s. Pali Filling station Ramasia v. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1993(2) WLC 111.6. There is no substance in the revision petition. Along with the revision petition the Petitioner has filed copies of certain letters and note-sheets of the defendant-non-Petitioner. It would he relevant to quote it here the background of the case as given in the Inter Office Memo of the defendant/non-Petitioner (Annexure-4). It runs as under :-"Background of the case :-The above dealership was commissioned during 1976. The application was made in the joint name by Shri Shanker Dan Charan and Shri Sidharth Charan. However, before the R.O. was Commissioned Sidharth Charan did not take any interest in the commissioning of the pump and the R.O. was commissioned by Shri Shanker Dan Charan Shri Sidharth Charan has since joined I.A.S. He did not submit his formal registration to I.O.C. As the status stands now, we have only an affidavit from Shri Sidharth Charan which he submitted in connection with the L.P.G. DIstributorship at Pali that he did not have any relationship with any Oil Co. dealership. A registered letter was written by our Assistant Manager (Sales) Jodhpur to Shri Sidharth Charan to confirm whether he submitted any formal resignation or not but no reply has been received. Therefore, as the case stands now a decision has to be taken whether Shri Shanker Dan Charan can he allowed to become proprietor of the retail outlet. Hence dealership agreement go. signed by Shri Shanker Dan Charan and submitted to you for your taking appropriate action as you deem fit in line with your suggestion at Jaipur on 30.1.1985."7. Clause (h) of the Inter Office Memo dated September, 19, 1989 (Annexure 3) runs as under :"(b) In case Shri Shanker Dan Charan does not agree to the proposal by taking Smt. Sidharth as a partner, the existing dealership should he terminated on the basis of false information given by Shri Shanker Dan Charan vide his letter dated 22.9.76 about the voluntary withdrawal of Shri Sidharth from the partnership proposal. Since it has been reported by N.R. that Shri Shanker Dan Charan is not prepared to take Smt. Sidharth as a partner necessary action may be initiated for the termination of the dealership set up after checking on all legal points. The progress may be conveyed to H.O. from time to time. This issues with the approval of Director (M)."8. It is thus clear from the Annexure-4 dated February 19, 1985 that the Petitioner Sidharth Charan sent an affidavit to the defendant/non-Petitioner stating that he did not have any relationship with any Oil Company dealership. It is the admitted case of the Petitioner that he was selected in Indian Administrative Service in 1983. In view of these facts it cannot be said that the plaintiff Shanker Dan Charan gave false information about the voluntary withdrawal of Sidharth Charan from the partnership proposal. Rule 13(i) All India Service (Conduct) Rules, 1968 provides that no member of the Service shall except with the previous sanction of the Government engage directly or indirectly in any trade or business or negotiate for or undertake any employment. It is also stated in Clause (a) of Inter Office Memo dated September 19, 1989 (Annexure-3) that since Shri Sidharth Charan being a Government employee cannot undertake any business interest in his name. The suit as framed can well be decided in the absence of the Petitioner Sidharth Charan. If he is impleaded in it, its nature would change. In that case there would be much more contest. in between the Petitioner and the plaintiff than in between the plaintiff and the defendant. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Civil Judge, Pali acted with material irregularity or irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction while rejecting the application of the Petitioner Sidharth Charan moved under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C.9. Moreover, the jurisdiction of this Court while hearing revision petition under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code is very limited. It has been observed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 76 para 5, as follows:"In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdic
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
tion to interfere with the order of the Appellate Court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first Appellate Court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first Appellate Court exercised its jurisdiction either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code: see the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav (1966) 1 SCR 102 (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 153) and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh, 1970(2) SCR 368 ."10. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.