1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1651/08 M/s. Sohan Travels vs. Dy. Manager & Ors. Date of order : 22/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Naveen Sharma for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30.1.08, whereby the application of the petitioner for his impleadment as defendant in the suit filed by the firm M/s. Sohan Travels has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid firm was a partnership firm and was not a proprietary firm as has been described in the suit. It was argued that while the defendant i.e. Gail India Ltd. gave information for opening of the tender to all other tenderers but no such information was given to the applicant and this plea was also taken by the plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint. It is argued that one of the partners on his own 2 filed suit and therefore he wanted to become a party to the suit so that he could also present his case before this Court. Learned trial court rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any document to show that while information was given to other tenderers for the tender dated 4.10.2007, such information was not given to the petitioner. Learned trial court observed that in fact the documents which have been produced by the petitioner clearly shows that the tender was floated by the respondents and this fact is particularly known to the applicant. The learned trial court observed that the petitioner was not a party to the disputed tender process and therefore he was not a necessary party to the suit either. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was required to show from the record whether the firm in question was a partnership firm because the cause title makes it clear that the plaint describe the firm M/s. Sohan Travels as a proprietorship firm with Shri Bijay Pratap Singh as it is proprietor whereas the petitioner also 3 describe itself as M/s. Sohan Travels through its proprietor Pratap Singh Rathore. The petitioner has not brought on record that in fact it was a partnership firm or that he was also a partner. As would be evident from the description of the plaint where two firms have been mentioned by different names. Learned counsel argued that the respondents in their reply to the application of the petitioner has admitted that in fact two tenders were submitted by them in the name of M/s. Sohan Travels which are actually owned by the applicant Bijay Pratap Singh. It would be evident from the contents of the reply to the application submitted by the respondents as also from the description of the plaintiff in the plaint that two tenders were separately submitted by the name of M/s. Sohan Travels. While the petitioner M/s. Sohan Travels is shown to be a proprietorship firm of Shri S.P. Singh. M/s. Sohan Travels and Logistics is shown to be proprietorship firm of Bijay Singh. Address of both the firms is same as in that 4 both the firms have given their address on 21/31, Sector 2 Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. Even if that be so, there is no reason why when already one firm has filed the suit, the other firm should also be joined as party. In the circumstances, the reason given by the trial court in not permitting impleadment of the petitioner as the defendant cannot be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/