C.R. No. 157 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 157 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 14, 2009 Anil Kumar .. Petitioner v. Kali Charan and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. C. Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.12.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, `the CPC') for rejection of the plaint was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.1 filed a suit on 26.2.1997 for declaration with consequential relief of payment of compensation against respondent No.2- M/s Vishal Marble on account of death of a person. As per allegations in the suit, respondent No.2-firm was consisting of following partners: 1. Shri Pawan Kumar son of Joti Ram 2. Shri Suresh Kumar son of Pawan Kumar 3. Shri Sushil Kumar son of Pawan Kumar 4. Shri Anil Kumar son of Pawan Kumar An application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was required to be filed for the reason that Naresh Kumar son of Pawan Kumar, appearing as DW1, in his statement recorded on 6.10.2007, disclosed that in fact Anil Kumar son of Pawan Kumar, his brother, is the sole proprietor of the firm. The application was allowed by the court below and Anil Kumar was impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed with the plea that the petitioner has been impleaded as defendant in the suit after the expiry of period of limitation for filing suit against him which is two years under Article 82 of the Limitation Act and the suit being barred by limitation, the plaint deserves to be rejected. However, the learned court below dismissed the application. C.R. No. 157 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner has been impleaded in the suit as one of the defendant nearly 7 years after the filing of the suit, it should be deemed to have been filed against the petitioner at the time the order was passed impleading him as one of the defendant and the same being beyond the period of limitation, the plaint deserves to be dismissed. However, I do not find any merit in the contention raised. The petitioner has been impleaded as one of the defendant on account of the statement made by his brother-Naresh Kumar that it is the petitioner, who is the sole proprietor of the firm. However, it is yet to be established on consideration of the evidence which is to be brought on record by the parties as to who were the partners of the firm at the time when accident was held, the suit was filed and at the time of filing of the application. Merely on the statement of the defendant- petitioner, the plaint cannot be rejected considering that it is the petitioner only who is the sole proprietor, once as per the contention raised by respondent No.1 in the suit, the firm was consisting of four partners, i.e., Pawan Kumar and his three sons including Anil Kumar. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.1.2009 mk