IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 241 of 2011. Date of Decision: 3.8.2011. The State of HP & Anr. …Petitioners. Versus. Gurinder Pal Singh …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. For the Respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Solan whereby he rejected the application filed by the petitioner-State for impleading the Union of India as a party defendant and for leading additional evidence. 2. According to the State, the contract which is the subject matter of the dispute between the parties was entered for construction of the National Highway and, therefore, the National 2 Highway Authorities and the Central Government are necessary parties in the proceeding. 3. Admittedly, the contract was not entered into between the Union of India and the National Highway Authorities, but it is the State Government who has entered into contract with the plaintiff-contractor. The plaintiff is not concerned with the inter-se arrangement between the National Highway Authority, Union of India and State Government. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Solan was justified in rejecting the application. As far as leading of additional evidence is concerned, the application which has been placed on record does not in any manner disclose, what is the document sought to be brought on record as additional evidence. There is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. 4. It is, however, made clear that if as per the inter-se arrangement, the State Government has to recover any amount from the National Highway Authority or the Union of India, the same can be recovered. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge 3rd August, 2011. (Krn Guleria)