' Brief facts leading to the filing of this revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners and respondent No.2. It was contended in the plaint that respondent No.1 company, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of textiles while the petitioners and respondent No.2 are Insurance Companies.
2. On 16-11-2002, the petitioners entered into a fire insurance policy agreement with regard to its stock with respondent No.2 and the petitioners were included as co-insurers by respondent No.2.
Subsequently, the insurance policy agreement was amended and fresh insurance policy agreement executed inter se respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, thereafter, on 22-2-2003, a fire broke out in the premises of respondent No.1 and the insured goods were destroyed. Respondent No.1 submitted a claim to respondent No.2 in this behalf. It appears that factum and quantum of loss by fire is not in dispute between the parties. Respondent No.2 paid seventy per cent. Of the agreed and accepted loss and with reference to balance of thirty per cent., stated that the petitioners/insurance companies were liable. A legal notice issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.2 was answered too in the same terms. On failure to obtain the balance of thirty per cent of the claim, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery thereof against respondent No.2 and the petitioners.
4. The petitioners and respondent No.2 entered appearance and filed their respective written statements. Respondent No.2 inter alia took up the plea that the petitioners were co-insurers not only in respect of the original fire policy agreement but also its subsequent amendment hence were liable to pay to respondent No.1 the amount claimed. The petitioners in their written statements besides various preliminary objections took up the plea that the amendment in the fire policy agreement was not executed by the petitioners hence were not liable thereunder.
5. On the divergent pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit is validly instituted because no authorization is granted by Board of Directors to the plaintiff to file the suit? If so, its effect? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit? OPD
(3) Whether the original policy was substituted by amendment, therefore, no claim can be made from the defendant? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit against the defendant by acceptance of the payment? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
(7) Whether the suit has been filed with mala fide intention, ulterior motives? OPD
(8) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of proper parties? If so, its effect? OPD
(9) Whether the contents of the plaint are vague, uncertain and unspecific? If so, its effect? OPD
(10) Whether the suit is false, vexatious therefore, the defendants are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.?
(11) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain, and adjudicate this matter? OPD
(12) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for recovery of Rs.7.95 million with profit mark-up as prayed for against the defendant jointly and severally? OPD (12-A) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
6. Before the evidence could be recorded the petitioners filed two separate applications under Order XIV, rule 2, C.P.C. Praying that the issues of law be tried first. It has been noticed that no specific issues were identified. It was merely stated that issues pertaining to jurisdiction and limitation should be decided first. The said applications were resisted not only by respondent No.1 but also by respondent No.2.
7. The trial Court vide its two separate orders dated 17-9-2004 and 25-12-2004 dismissed both the applications.
8. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Followed by another application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. It was contended in both the applications that respondent No.1 had no cause of action against the petitioners and that the suit was time-barred, therefore, the plaint be rejected and in the second application it was prayed that the names of the petitioners be deleted. Respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.2 resisted the applications. The trial Court vide impugned order, dated 21-12-2004 dismissed both the applications.
9. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record appended with this petition has also been perused.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no private of contract between respondent No.1 and the petitioners as the amendment to the fire insurance policy was not executed by them.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has vehemently controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and has contended that the petitioners alone are liable for the claim subject-matter of the suit filed by respondent No.l.
12. Respondent No.1 has seriously controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners.
13. It is the case of the petitioners themselves that the petitioners along with respondent No.2 were co-insurers qua insurance policy dated 16-12-2002 issued by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.l. The primary dispute requires resolution and adjudication is whether the petitioners are bound by the subsequent amendment to the insurance policy as contended by the respondents. This matter can only be decided after recording evidence and issues in this behalf have been framed. Even otherwise, it is settled law that there can be no partial rejection of the plaint. The only application, which could be considered, would be under Order I, rule 10 sub-rule (2) of C.P.C. For deletion of the names of the petitioners from the array of the defendants. Order I of the C.P.C. Perceives of the parties that can be impleaded which include both necessary and proper parties. Order I, rule 7, C.P.C. Clearly states if the plaintiff is in doubt as to from whom he is entitled to obtain relief claimed for he may join all of such persons as defendants. The provision of law is a complete answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. By no stretch of imagination can the petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the case escape the net of being at least proper parties if not necessary parties. In this view of the matter this petition is devoid of any merit hence is dismissed with no order as to costs, however, the trial Court is directed to decide the matter expeditiously preferably by or before the 30th September, 2005.