Suit – Recovery of service charges – A suit was instituted by respondent nos.1 and 2 against respondent no.3 for the recovery of service charges – Notice was served upon sole defendant i.e., respondent no.3 but no one appeared – The Court proceeded ex-parte – Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for being impleaded as the defendant in this suit contending that it is a successor of respondent no.3 – The court of first instance vide order dated 05.10.2018 allowed the motion to add the appellant as one of the defendants – However, the impleadment of the appellant was revoked by the High Court on the ground that it is not a proper or a necessary party to the suit – Correctness:
Held: The appellant has relied upon the Certificate of Incorporation dated 22.02.1988 to claim that it has succeeded the respondent no.3 – Its incorporation or its Certificate of Incorporation in no way conclusively proves that it has come into existence as a successor of respondent no.3 – In such circumstances, appellant cannot be accepted to be the successor of respondent no.3 so as to permit it to be impleaded and to defend the suit for the recovery of service charges – The appellant has nowhere established its independent right to be impleaded to defend the suit except for claiming to be the successor of respondent no.3 which, in opinion of this Court, has no legs to stand – In the case at hand, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are not claiming any relief against the appellant – There is no iota of material to indicate that the relief, as claimed in the suit against respondent no.3, if granted, would be implemented against the appellant – Therefore, the appellant is not a necessary party to the suit – The appellant cannot also be construed as a proper party once it has failed to establish that it is a successor to the respondent no.3 – In the absence of any evidence to prove that respondent no.3 has ceased to exist or cannot be represented in the suit on its own to contest it on merits – This apart, the respondent nos.1 and 2 who have instituted the suit are dominus litis and it is for them to choose their adversaries – If they do not array the proper and necessary parties to the suit, they do it at their own risk – They cannot be compelled to add a party to defend a suit – Besides, the summons issued in the suit meant to be served upon respondent no.3, were served in the year 2008 – The seal and signatures on the acknowledgement on the said summons is of the appellant – However, the appellant kept silent – The impleadment application was filed almost after nine years of the knowledge – Thus, the impleadment has been rightly refused to the appellant by the High Court. [Paras 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 42]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.