Dismissed¶6

Avnish Bansal v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Delhi HC23 Jul 2025CM(M)/1322/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; CM(M) 1322/2025; Avnish Bansal v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain; Justice Manoj Jain; 23.07.2025; Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; impleadment of parties; proper and necessary parties; non-joinder of parties; Suit for Recovery; dismissal of application as not maintainable; impugned Trial Court order dated 17.03.2025; petition dismissed as not pressed; liberty to file fresh application; no observation on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for addition of necessary/proper parties; the Trial Court is to decide such application in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, and without any observation on its merits. ¶6

Avnish Bansal Vs Sanjeev Kumar Jain — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC — filed in the pending Suit for Recovery with a prayer for impleadment and for dismissal of the suit for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties — was maintainable (the petition on this question was ultimately not pressed).

¶4

Court's answer

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move afresh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking addition of any party he considers necessary and proper; the Trial Court, without being influenced by its impugned order dated 17.03.2025, shall consider and dispose of any such fresh application in accordance with law.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The present petition (CM(M) 1322/2025) is dismissed as not pressed.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Court has made no observation on the merits of the proposed fresh application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.), CM(M) 1322/2025, order dated 23.07.2025: The petitioner, defendant in a pending Suit for Recovery, challenged the Trial Court's order dated 17.03.2025 whereby the plaintiff's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC — seeking impleadment of purported proper/necessary parties together with a prayer to dismiss the suit for non-joinder — was dismissed as not maintainable and beyond the scope of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the prayer clause was inappropriately worded, did not press the petition, and sought liberty to apply afresh. The petition was dismissed as not pressed, with liberty granted to move afresh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC; the Trial Court is to consider and dispose of any such fresh application in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the impugned order, and the Court expressly made no observation on the merits of the proposed application.

¶1

$~89

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 1322/2025 & CM APPL. 43654-43656/2025

¶4

AVNISH BANSAL .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms.Ankita Chaudhary, Mr. Avnish Dave, Mr. Shreyoj Balaj & Mr. Chand Kapoor, Advs

¶6

versus

¶7

SANJEEV KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent Through: None.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶9

O R D E R % 23.07.2025

¶10

Petitioner is defending a Suit for Recovery and has already filed his written statement.

¶11

During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC praying for impleadment of certain parties, who according to him were proper and necessary parties.

¶12

However, it was filed with the prayer that the suit be dismissed for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.

¶13

It seems that because of the nature of the prayer made in the abovesaid application, the abovesaid application has been dismissed, as being not maintainable and beyond the scope of law.

¶14

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also, in all fairness, admitted that the prayer clause was not appropriately worded which has resulted in dismissal of his said application. She submits that in view of the above, she does not press the present petition but seeks liberty to

¶15

CM(M) 1322/2025

¶16

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/07/2025 at 12:36:02

¶19

file application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC afresh seeking impleadment of such necessary/proper parties.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶21

Simultaneously, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move application afresh under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking addition of any party which he thinks to be necessary and proper one. As and when, any such application is filed, without being influenced by the impugned order dated 17.03.2025, learned Trial Court shall consider the same and would dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶22

It is however, clarified that this Court has not made any observation with respect to the merits of such proposed application.

¶23

MANOJ JAIN, J

¶24

JULY 23, 2025 Sk/SHS

¶25

CM(M) 1322/2025

¶26

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/07/2025 at 12:36:02

Avnish Bansal v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avnish Bansal v. Sanjeev Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Qadeer Ahmed Vs Ataur-Rehman Zanjani

Pranav Ansal Vs Vipin Malhotra & Anr.

Usha Shriram Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ajeet Singh

Mohd. Samar Vs Waseem Ahmed & Anr.

Himani Vs Akshay Gupta & Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Urmila and Ors.

M/S Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs Dry Mix Co. (Plaxit) Llc

Narayan Sewa Samiti Vs Millennium Education Management Pvt. Ltd.

Sh Qadeer Ahmed Vs Ataur-Rehman Zanjani

Pranav Ansal Vs Vipin Malhotra & Anr.

Usha Shriram Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ajeet Singh

Rakesh Singh & Ors. Vs Sushil Kumar & Ors.

Surya Prakash Vs Smt Krishna Gaur

Sheela Foam Limited Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.