CRP 163/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18/3/2010 passed by the l earned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No.349/2007. Respondent No.1/plaintiff had purchased a Bolero vehicle from respondent No.2 i.e Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services. The vehicle was purchased thro ugh the authorised dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra i.e the petitioner. Unfortunately for respondent No.1/plaintiff, the Bolero vehicle was stol en within a month of its purchase. Since the vehicle was insured, respondent No. 1/plaintiff preferred a claim with the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No .3). The insurance amount was paid by the Oriental Insurance Company to Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services and not to respondent No.1/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by this, respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he is directly entitled to the full compensation for the loss v ehicle. The alternative prayer was for a declaration that respondent No.1/plaint iff is entitled to realization of the balance amount between the cheque issued b y Oriental Insurance and the loan amount given by Mahindra & Mahindra after subt racting the instalments already paid with interest @ 12.5% per annum. This alter native claim was made against the petitioner and Mahindra & Mahindra. Summons were issued in the Suit and the petitioner entered appearance an d moved an application for deleting its name from array of parties. The applicat ion filed by the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order passed by the lea rned Munsiff No.1 Guwahati, Kamrup district. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is now before me challenging the order passed by the learned Munsiff. The learned Munsiff held in the impugned order t hat since the petitioner has filed its written statement and since respondent 1/ plaintiff has sought reliefs against all the defendants, the application of the petitioner deserves to be rejected. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 18/3/2010 passed by the learned Munsiff ought to be set as ide and the application filed by the petitioner for striking off its name be all owed. There is no cause of action that has arisen against the petitioner (defendant No .2). The only role of the petitioner is that it is the authorised dealer of Mahi ndra & Mahindra and nothing more. The petitioner was not the recipient of the in surance amount, which was paid directly to Mahindra & Mahindra and the suit file d by respondent No.1/plaintiff was for recovery of that amount from Mahindra & M ahindra. The petitioner who is only a dealer has nothing to do with the transact ion, which has been entered into between the Insurance Company and Mahindra and Mahindra and which is purportedly to the detriment of the interest of respondent No.1/plaintiff. The petitioner does not come into the picture at all. As a result, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the name of the petitioner be deleted form the array of parties in the Suit pending before the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup. The parties will appear before the le arned Munsiff for further proceedings on 22/11/2010. The petition is disposed of.