Name: Syed Mohqiq Hussain

Enrollment no: 2101CUKmr37

Semester: 3rd
Course: Legal Aspects of Business | MBA-C301
Programme: MBA
Submitted to: Dr Waseem Jahangir

Bakshi Hardatt v. The State of J&K, 1977

Advocates
1. T.S. Thakur
2. S.P. Gupta
3. A.D. Singh
Judges
1. A.S. Anand
2. I.K. Kotwal
Facts
Respondent No. 1 filed a lawsuit on April 5, 1968, in the High Court on its original side, seeking
to recover Rs. 35,120.11 from the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. On January 2, 1971,
the appellant made a motion before the learned Single Judge who was hearing the case that the
firm Kathua Motor Union, a partnership, was a necessary party to the suit and could, therefore,
be impleaded as a defendant in the action because of the transactions that had occurred between
the firm and respondent No. 1. In his ruling of September 7, 1971, the learned Single Judge, J.
N. Bhat J., who served as His Lordship at the time, dismissed the aforementioned application.
The order is the subject of this appeal. Respondent No. 1 has raised a preliminary objection,
arguing that because the contested decision was not appealable under order 43 of the Code of
Civil Procedure or a "judgement" as defined by claim 12 of the Letters Patent, the appeal could
not be maintained.
Argument by learned council
The knowledgeable attorney has then claimed that because the appellant is only one of several
partners in the firm Messrs. Kathua Motor Union, the impugned ruling has harmed his ability
to collect contributions from other partners. No additional lawsuit against the remaining
partners would be admissible at the appellant's request, according to the experienced counsel,
unless the firm itself was a party to the current lawsuit. The experienced counsel's argument
also lacks any substance.
Point of law
A judgement within the sense of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent cannot be defined as an order
that denies a request to amend a lawsuit by adding a party or for any other reason. This is an
absolute legal principle that cannot be established. Every case must be decided based on its
own unique facts.
Judgement
The judgement on behalf of the court simply indicated that a refusal that denied someone the
chance to later argue their claim had resolved their rights and obligations and was, thus, a
judgement. This court has ruled in favour of it that there is no way that the appellant's right to
demand contributions from the other partners in the firm is not fully guaranteed by Section 43
of the Contract Act. The contested order has no bearing on the case's merits because it does not
deprive the appellant of any such rights. This clearly demonstrates that the contested order is
harmless and has no bearing on the rights and obligations of the parties in controversy in the
suit if the allegations in the plaint are proven. This is true even if the firm Messrs Kathua Motor
Union, in which the appellant is a partner, is added as a defendant.
For the aforementioned grounds, it is obvious that the assailed order does not qualify as a
judgement under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. The appeal is rejected because it fails, and
the preliminary objection still stands. Costs must follow the outcome.