ORDER
1. This civil revision is directed against an order dated 23-5-1994 rejecting the application of the defendant respondent filed under O.1, R. 10 (2), C.P.C. A suit between the plaintiff M/s. Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. is proceeding against M/s. C. Doctor Co. Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,58,048,44 from the defendant with interest etc. Admittedly a counter claim has been filed by the defendant in which the defendant had claimed Rupees 39,419-70 p. from the plaintiff as counter claim. In the replication filed by the plaintiff it was said in para 9 that "the contents of paragraph 18 of the written statement are wrong and are denied. The Managing Director of the plaintiff Company did not suggest the defendant to issue a credit note to the Progressive Transport Agency as alleged by him. It is for the defendant to implead the progressive Transport Agency as a co-defendant in order to show that such payment, as alleged, has been made to such Agency. It appears to be necessary to reproduce para 18 of the written statement of the defendant which is as under:
"That the plaintiff through its Managing Director asked the defendants to issue a credit note toone progressive Transport Agency, and in compliance with the request of the plaintiff the defendants on 11-1-1985 issued a credit note No. M/55 in favour of the said transport agency for a sum of Rs. 150 lacs. The defendants were given to understand that the Progressive Transport Agency was "BE-NAMI" receiver of this commission amount and in fact this commission amount was to be transferred over by the Progressive Transport Agency to the Managing Director of the plaintiff as per the arrangement they must have made between them. It seems this arrangement between Progressive Transport Agency and the plaintiff did not work out to the satisfaction of the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff wanted the defendants to raise dispute with the Progressive Transport Agency and also to help the plaintiff in the matter. In this regard the plaintiff also sent four letters to the defendants along with a draft copy of a letter to be sent by the defendants was concerned, it had earlier paid the commission to the Progressive Transport Agency as per the instructions of the Managing Director of the plaintiff, and, therefore, the defendants did not want to become a party in dispute between Progressive Transport Agency and the plaintiff. The defendants did not find it wise to involve itself in the matter, and the decision of the defendants has antagonised the plaintiff and now as a reaction the plaintiff is trying to create frivolous claims over the defendants."
2. The defendants appear to have been advised after looking to the replication of the plaintiff to file an application for implead-ment on which the order impugned was passed The learned court below rejected the application of the defendants-applicants on the ground that the application seeking impleadment of M/s. Progressive Transport Agency was barred by limitation. Any claim which amount have been there against the said Progressive Transport Agency that become barred by limitation due to passage of time. Now it would not be proper or legal to implead a person as a defendant in a suit against whom the claim has already become barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the applicant submited that the plaintiff cannot and could not legally object the impleadment of M/S. Progressive Transport Agency as defendant in the suit under O. 1, R. 10(2) as the plaintiff himself in the replication has given such a statement. Now the said statement would operate as promissory estoppel. The learned counsel submits that the court below has committed a manifest error of law in ignoring this aspect of the case while rejecting the application for impleadment and allowing the objection of the plaintiff. The settled law is that the palintiff is the master of his case. It is, he who would prepare the plaint against a person against whom he seeks a relief. If he did not seek any relief against any person, the defendant or any other person cannot compell the plaintiff to implead him: The duty of the court while allowing or consideration of an impleadment application is also to consider whether an impleadment of a person sought to be impleaded is necessary and just for the proper adjudication of the case. If is to be noted that a person shall not be impleaded or any amendment adding some defendant or some claim in a plaint which has become barred by limitation, shall not be allowed. The court below was perfectly justified in refusing to direct impleadment of M/s; Progressive Transport Agency as a defendant as he was fully satisfied that Progressive Transport Agency was neither a necessary nor a proper party to be impleaded. I am of the view that the reasoning recorded also appears to be correct that the claim, if any, against the proposed defendant M/s. Progressive Transport Agency has already became barred by limitation.
3. The next submission is that the plaintiff is estoped by promissory estoppel jn objecting the impleadment of the proposed defendant M/s. Progressive Transport Agency. The submission is misconceived. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. The proposition of promissory estoppel shall not bind other person or saddle liability on other persons because statement of a third person. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and I do not find any error of law or jurisidiction in the impugned order.
4. The Civil revision is dismissed summarily.
5. Revision dismissed.