CR No. 4415 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4415 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.11.2011 Sham Sunder Sharma ...Petitioner Vs. Ashok Gandhi ...Respondent BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. --- A.N.Jindal, J. This petition has arisen out of the order dated 1.06.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner (herein referred as petitioner) under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading Ankit son of Ashok Gandhi, (defendant), as party/defendant, has been dismissed. Initially the plaintiff/petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,98,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- as principle and Rs.98,000/- as CR No. 4415 of 2011 2 interest) against the defendant/respondent (hereinafter referred as the defendant) on the basis of the payment by cheques dated 30.01.2007, 1.02.2007 and 6.7.2007. The case of the plaintiff is that he had advanced the loan through the cheques to the defendant Ashok Gandhi but now at the stage of evidence, when he summoned accounts books of the petitioner he came to know of cheque No.541988 dated 1.2.2007 was got encashed by Ankit son of the defendant. The petitioner has submitted that he had no knowledge about this fact at the time of filing the suit, whereas the defendant had knowledge at the time of filing written statement of the cheque which was got encashed by his son Ankit on his behalf. Now by way of application under Order Rule 10 of the Code the petitioner wants to implead Ankit as defendant. The cheque for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as pleaded by the plaintiff/petitioner is dated 30.1.2007 on the basis of which he claims repayment but the pleadings indicate that he had issued that cheque (basis of the suit) in the month of February. The plaintiff now seeks impleadment of Ankit without seeking any amendment of the pleadings. There are no allegations against Ankit non-respondent that he was handed over the cheque or he had encashed the cheque on behalf of his father Ashok Gandhi. In the absence of any allegations that Ankit was liable to pay the cheque amount, no cause of action could be said to have arisen against the person who had encashed the same. The trial court has also rightly observed that issues have already been settled on 27.5.2009 and the evidence has CR No. 4415 of 2011 3 already commenced. The suit is pending since 2008. Thus, this application appears to have been filed just to delay the adjudication of the trial. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 14.11.2011 Judge rp