Allahabad High Court
MUNNA LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for failure to properly implead the finance corporation as a respondent.
Summary
The petitioner, Munna Lal, filed a writ petition challenging actions of the State of U.P. and others. The petition incorrectly described the fourth respondent, a finance corporation, using multiple former names and an unintelligible description, despite a prior order allowing time to properly implead the party. The court noted that the petitioner failed to correctly identify and implead the finance corporation, which is essential for jurisdiction. No substantive merits of the petition were considered. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh petition with proper impleadment after serving notice on the finance corporation's counsel. The dismissal was without prejudice to a re‑filing.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of misdescribing and failing to properly implead a necessary respondent in a writ petition?
Subjects
- civil procedure
- impleader
- writ petition
- misdescription of parties
- jurisdiction
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT TAX No. - 3615 of 2026
Munna Lal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Geetam Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arimardan
Singh Rajpoot, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents and Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for the Tata Capitals Ltd.
2. Upon case being taken up, it has been first noticed, despite indulgence
granted to learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 02.09.2026,
instead of properly implead the Finance Corporation, as party respondent
No.4, learned counsel for the petitioner has mis-described that party as
"Manager M.R.P. Mutual benefit limited, M.R.P. Micro finance, Tata Motor
Finance Aligarh, Near main Branch State Bank of India". It is unintelligible.
3. On query made, Sri Geetam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the financer was earlier known as M.R.P. Mutual Benefit Limited.
Later, as M.R.P. Micro Finance. Still later, as Tata Motor Finance and
presently as Tata Capital Limited. However, the description of respondent
No. 4 as incorporated (in his own handwriting), by Sri Geetam Singh does
not reflect that correct status of respondent No. 4, in fact, the description is
unintelligible.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
file fresh petition after properly impleading all necessary parties in the
manner required by law, after serving notice upon Sri Amit Shukla, learned
counsel for the finance corporation.
September 30, 2026
Anurag/-
(Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…