CR No.3948 of 2010 ()&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on 12.7.2010. M/S Telu Ram Gian Singh -- Petitioner vs. Roshan Lal and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, This revision petition has arisen out of an order passed by learned Addl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra, dated 30.4.2010, allowing the application filed by defendant No.1, for deleting his name from the array of defendants. Briefly, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,87,034.32 paise against the defendants on the ground that the defendants are selling their produce to the plaintiff, who is a Commission Agent and used to take money in advance for agricultural purposes. It is pleaded that defendant No.1 is the Karta of the family, who had opened three accounts with the plaintiff firm in the name of his sons i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and used to operate all the accounts jointly. After notice in the suit, defendant No.1. represented that he has CR No.3948 of 2010 ()&M) 2 been intentionally and malafidely shown as a party, though he has nothing to do with the transaction carried out by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and accordingly, he filed an application dated 07.8.2007 praying for deleting his name from array of defendants. The trial Court after taking into consideration the documents placed on the file, found that transaction pertaining to recovery of Rs.9,87034.32paise was entirely carried out by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and not by defendant No.1. and as such, the application was allowed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is an entry on record where defendant No.1. had received Rs.2900/- from the account of defendant No.3 and Rs. 720/- from the account of defendant No.2. It is, thus, submitted that being Karta of the family, he had opened three accounts in the names of his sons i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4., therefore, he has rightly been impleaded as a party. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Order 1 Rule 10 (i) of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, CPC) provides that the Court, at any stage of the proceedings with or without application filed by the party, order the name of any party, if improperly joined as plaintiff or defendant, struck off that name in exercise of powers provided by the Statute. The trial Court had allowed the application on the ground that there is no transaction between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 of securing the amount for which the recovery suit has been filed. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that CR No.3948 of 2010 ()&M) 3 defendant No.1 being a Karta of the family should be impleaded as a party is highly misconceived because in a suit for recovery, only a borrower of the amount or guarantor is liable to be impleaded as a party for the purpose of recovery. The plaintiff may be dominus litus but he cannot be allowed to implead the party in a suit against whom no decree could be passed. In view of my above discussion, I do not find any merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. 12.7.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge